Regardless of Palin's victim status (whether organic or manufactured), she now should apologize to the Jewish community.

Early in this thread I called her an idiot. I admit that it was a knee-jerk reaction. I take it back. Sarah Palin is a reactionary who knows no shame.

At least Palin isn't claiming that the Democratic Party is secretly trying to get Loughner off scot free. That claim was apparently made by Limbaugh.

This is what contemporary right wing rhetoric looks like. I find it hard to believe none of the folks on the right here are willing to denounce it.

I find it amusing that the left has (for once) taken a news item and reframed it for their own benefit and that it's driving the right into a froth. There's nothing the right dislikes more than the left stealing a page out of their playbook

Ok, why should Palin apologize to the Jewish community?

And when did Rush make that claim. I heard a clip of him telling people the shooter was a dem. which of course turned out to be untrue.

She has made a mockery of particular aspect of a long and dark history of Jewish oppression and ostracism.

Actual Jewish blood libels are as recent as post-WWII, and have even spilled over into the 21st century.

To have Palin use the term within the context she has is insensitive and ignorant. If I were Jewish, I would be deeply offended by her remark. I have Jewish friends, and although I haven't talked about this with them, I am inclined to be angry at her myself for her cheapening the gravity of such a concept that to this day remains a dire situation to some people (and their families) who are close to me .

As I said, Palin knows no shame.

Well I'll be honest with you I had no idea that's what the term meant. I'm guessing Palin had (probably does now, likely getting calls by now) no idea either. I usually assume Palin has no idea what she's talking about when she's speaking. I mean have you ever heard her speak about foreign policy?

Rush Limbaugh Democrats Support Shooter | Loughner Victim | Mediaite

Okay, I misremembered the "scot free" part. Apparently the Democratic Party is just trying to make sure that Loughner is charged with some sort of lesser crime.

While I don't want to touch this "debate", I will simply add to the discussion a response I read from a Jewish Law Professor:

For the record, I don't consider what she said anti-Semitic. I consider it insensitive regardless of what a law professor says.

I am an ardent supporter and defender of Sara Palin. She is human and subject to human error like anyone else. If Palin's biggest critics held others to the standards they set for Palin there could actually be some form of constructive discourse. They do not and there will be no constructive discourse on tone until that happens.

And to think she has a genuine shot at becoming president.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

I sincerely doubt Palin stands alone in the standards people hold for public figures. Regardless, it does not absolve her of her errors and she should handle them with dignity if she's going to be in the public eye.

Listen to his show and make your own judgment. I heard the comment in context, the liberal spin is purposefully provocative.

What part of "the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame" is there to contextualize? What part of "he's just a victim" is there to contextualize? What part of "to make sure he's not convicted of murder – but something lesser" is there to contextualize?

Are you telling me that if I listen to the whole episode that this quotation takes on a different meaning? What if I don't want to listen to it? Can you explain it to me instead? What's been spun about this? Who's being provocative?

I listened to her entire monologue including the comment in question, it takes an incredible amount of effort to find real fault in anything she said and very thin skin to find anything she said to be offensive. Her response was well crafted, thought-out, professional and reflect the type of tone I would expect from a political leader. No other politician or political pundit has come close to the caliber of her response on this issue.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

It was political satire, used to illustrate a point. If you don't listen to his show, you would not get it. I don't comment on John Stewart because I never watch his show and I don't pass judgment based on selected snippets of his show - nor will I allow others to form my view - yet it happens with Rush all the time - why?

i didnt think the blood libel meme anti-semitic.
i just thought it mind-bending in its stupidity.

here's a blurb about the blood libel:

Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


what is she saying by invoking it? first she likens american neo-fascism to judiasm, and so displaces this from a political to a religious matter (which is might as well be judging by the way the wagons are rallied around the defense of the identity...)

the implication is that the right is being victimized by a force like anti-semitism across this tragedy in tucson.
and that any linkage between the neo-fascist predelection for the rhetoric of gun violence and anything that they do not find advantageous to acknowledge as an outcome is like blood libel.

it's amazingly stupid, even by the low standards to which one typically holds sarah palin.

Well, either Limbaugh isn't a satirist or he's a failed satirist.

Are you saying he didn't really mean what he said about the Democratic party? That he's poking fun at people who mischaracterize the Democrats' criticism of right-wing rhetoric? I thought Limbaugh was a conservative.

Try to be objective for a moment...can you not see the irony in the liberal vitriol against conservative talk radio and Palin...o.k., now go back. Understand that no conservative like Palin, Beck or Limbaugh are considering themselves victims of anything. Nor will they "tone it down" or change what they do or how they do it.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

We have had other discussions about Limbaugh, all I suggest is that perhaps spending a week or two of regularly listening to his show.

Limbaugh was using the logical argument used against conservative talk to come to a conclusion reasonable people would find incredible in order to shame his critics. I thought it was pretty crafty and somewhat humorous. Why not just find his shows from Monday - Wednesday and listen to those if you are really concerned about what he said and what he meant.

I guess the complexity of Limbaugh's humor is beyond me. I should have known, this is the guy whose cunning comedic mind conceived of "Barack the Magic Negro".

That still makes me laugh when he plays it. Again, you ignore the context. I also find South Park funny as hell and I have seen some stuff that could make a Nigerian truck driver blush, what a world we live in where people have no ability to laugh.:shakehead:

Of course, Limbaugh didn't conceive of that. You knew that, right?

like i said, the neo-fascist set had a bad couple days of news cycle management. maybe they're not used to it, given that they have their own media apparatus with a collective predelection for the circle jerk. but they did. and it's remarkable the way they've been squirming since. they obviously are concerned about their political language migrating outside the church when they cant control what is said about it. and they've been pretty good at managing this stuff---after all, they're the biggest neo-fascist movement in the west and they've avoiding being labeled neo-fascist. which is, i suspect, a bottom line fear---if things get really out of hand we could land there kind of thing. bad bad bad.

i have been reading quite a bit in the press since saturday from all sides and haven't really seen that much vitriol from those outside the church of american neo-fascism. what i've seen is people pointing out the nature of the political language. what i've seen is people emphasizing that this is poisonous stuff. what i've seen is people saying that what happened in tucson saturday happened in a political context. what i've also seen is an astonishing display of collective evasion by the right. they've tried everything: lying about what was said, presented themselves as the real victims of saturday's shootings and now likened their loss of control of news cycles to the blood libel. there's been the routine vitriol of beck, who spent his monday groveling at sarah palin's feet again, and that schizophrenic limbaugh just making shit up out of whole cloth. all this while complaining about vitriol.

it's been a pretty revealing performance. i hope it damages american neo-fascism for a long long time.

bg-

I can ~sort of~ see some of what Limbaugh is saying. This does represent a challenge for...not really the Democrat party...but for liberals. First of all, this type of act brings forth the most visceral reactions of society. In the past, this guy would have been taken out back and shot already (Lee Harvey Oswald, minus the conspiracy theories).

So, there will likely be a larger acceptance among liberals to seek a death penalty, which I think we can agree is a divergence from their typical platform. In order to avoid facing that political hot potato, there might be a attempt to prop up this guy's mental illness in order to save face. "He was crazy, so we can't execute him. We'll go easier on him." While there is no doubt this guy was crazy, he knew right from wrong. He was a functioning psychotic. He certainly has been provided the most able public defender in the United States - not that I am complaining, everyone deserves such an attorney when facing an accuser.

So, while I can't look inside the mind of Limbaugh, I think that is he is trying to imply that the prosecution of this guy represents a political mine field for the liberals. I don't agree with his last sentence - that democrats will attempt to charge him with a lesser crime. It's more the punishment which will represent a political challenge - considering that he almost killed a member of the People's House.

Lemme guess, it was really Gallagher.

Well, since you seem unable to Google, I will help you. The phrase was originally penned by a BLACK journalist for a (if I remember correctly) San Francisco newpaper. A popular conservative, musical satirist then created a song inspired by the article. Limbaugh agreed to play it on his radio show.

I'm certain you will acknowledge this and apologize for spreading lies in order to advance a political agenda. :) Lighten up. It's an honest mistake. He uses it so much, it's easy to attribute directly to him. He just didn't conjure it.

Please don't mistake my ignorance of Limbaugh-centric trivia for political maneuvering. My hat is off to you.

Ummm I'd side with roachboy if asked...if asked.

I wasn't going to say much due to bad health. I wile away my hours now online due to it.

While I personally did not listen to that day's program, I have listened to Rush enough to know when he is joking. He knows how to make money and get attention to make more money. How he does it is he'll take a small shred of fact and warp it and put his bias into it. Not much different than some of the Lefties out there on tv. The media gets pissed about Rush, much like they do with Stern, because neither can be controlled in what they say, the appearance of them being rebellious, is their paycheck. What I truly don't get is how someone can understand that simple money making scheme with one and want the other banned or silenced in some way. The "left" commentators do the same thing but if you notice they appear on left leaning networks. Thus, they are more controllable, same with Hannity, Beck, O'Really... and so on only they are on a right leaning network that claims to be "fair and (un)balanced."

BTW Happy Birthday to Rush (60) and Stern (57).

"i have been reading quite a bit in the press since saturday from all sides and haven't really seen that much vitriol from those outside the church of american neo-fascism.

You must have innocently missed Keith Olbermann tonight, who invited guests on to speak about the difference in tone between their programs and fox news. Flip to fox news at that moment, low an behold it's live coverage of governer brewer praising Barack Obama for his speech tonight. 45 minutes later, and 3 keith olbermann guests still complaining about Sarah Palin later (including him desperately trying to get Gabrielle Giffords cousin to say something negative about Sarah Palin), what's on fox news, live coverage of Barack Obama looking like a president.

You have gone off the ideological deep end. Seek help. Maybe it's what you choose to read. Doubtful, Maybe.

If this is because you have me blocked, congrats on your sixth sense. Otherwise, I think it's time to let go, man.

the press consensus about the palin clip gravitates toward emphasizing the epic stupidity of the blood libel phrase and her fumbling of an opportunity to move beyond talking exclusively to other neo-fascists.

Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment

what's interesting in this piece beyond providing a little resume of quotes is the information about palin's reframing campaign in which she is trying to recast herself as a "tea party hawk" in order to appear less stupid and partisan and more "presidential"---what's funny about the "tea party hawk" idea is that if you strip away the noxious rhetoric of the tea party, it's really the same as any other reagan-y military keynesian. same old same old, but even less smart and certainly less viable as an approach to the empirical world.

matthew--->don't watch or care about olbermann. sorry to disappoint.

as for "partisanship"---if the paliny right was broadly understood as american neo-fascism---which it is and that in a strict sense----then i wouldn't be bothered with them because the stupidity of their politics combined with the weight of the term would assure their marginalization. what bothers me really is that they are able to be neo-fascist without getting called on it much less labeled what they are. i blame an activist conservative media apparatus that is operating on explicitly political grounds in the context of a downsized and domesticated mainstream press that seems afraid to take on the far right. perhaps in wobbly financial times they worry about offending some of the corporate big boys who run the show. but mostly, i think they've just been cowed by conservative media activism. to everyone's detriment.

It's neo-fascism masked as patriotism. Liberals are a threat to the republic in their lack of fascist leanings. Why do they hate the republic?

the ultra-right advocates the republic of the late plato, texts like "the laws" which are essentially about a sham democracy behind which a "night commission" runs the show. in the name of security of course. that's why invisibility is so key. like american crossroads or the koch brothers. the financial oligarchy is a big enough tent to encompass both more and less open versions of the charade democracy/republic idea.

You sure you don't mean the Democratic party forcing abominations like Obamacare on us? Talk about sham democracy.

Putting things to votes is a sham democracy?

Um, since we don't live in a democracy, wouldn't it be "sham republicanism"? And wouldn't it be a hallmark of the principles of representative government, even if it's a bad idea? Representatives are required to vote their concience, not as their constituents ask.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make health reform a "sham".

Well, the republic in the U.S. does rely on representative democracy. So you could call it either.

I'm well aware we live in a representative republic (think that's the right term) and that the representatives aren't required to vote for what the people want.

However, when they don't, they get targeted to be voted out of office, as happened in 2010.

Then I agree with nothing in the first quote and everthing in the second. Referring to Obamacare as an example of a "sham democracy" demonstrates a failure to grasp the realities of the world that you corrected with your second statement. There's no sham. The system worked EXACTLY as it was designed to.

It is when you don't like the people voted into office. When you like the elected officials then it's not a sham. It's really no different then the hypocrisy of people who threw a fit when Bush was in office and people were making signs portraying him as stupid, a monkey, Hitler etc... People such as Rush and Hannity repeatedly claimed it was fine to disagree with the POTUS but it is disrespectful of the office and un-American to call the man names since he was in fact the POTUS. And "OMG! Yes! Especially during times of wars. The mans Commander and Chief you know. Yes, yes I know, how disrespectful. Yes, really it's disrespectful to the troops themselves. Oh, yes, yes I agree completely." Oh how times have changed. Now that they don't like the POTUS it's not only OK it's encouraged. Which is why Rush's listeners get to hear stuff like "Barack the Magic Negro" and think it's funny.

When Bush was in office the "patriot act" passed without much dissent at all. We need to be able to obtain info on people in these troubled times! In walks Obama and the same folks who were all for the PA now are calling on people not to answer questions on the national census because giving the government info is dangerous.

And people wonder why little to nothing beneficial comes out of our political process.

It's frustrating as a spectator. I can't imagine being directly subject to the process.

Much of the frustration I sense is in the very nature of a two-party system. You have a never-ending duel of ideologies that flip back and forth every four, eight, or twelve years or so.

For me it's frustrating because (aside from America being a significant part of Canadian life) I'm coming from a system that has two, three, and sometimes four parties criticizing and occasionally forming alliances against the party in power. Sure you can say that we "essentially" have a two-party system in that our federal government is going to be formed by either the Conservative party or the Liberal party, but the process of governance requires participating in a House that is made up of various other parties who support the interests of their constituents. Whether there is a geographic/social drive (Parti Quebecois' and the Bloc's support for Quebec sovereignty/rights/interests) or an ideological drive (NDP's social democratic platform), there are smaller parties who have significant influence given the fact that their being able to form their own federal government is either a long shot or a virtual impossibility.

I don't see this at all in the American system. I find that rigid and likely a great cause for the polarization we see. It's a switch: either/or. Either it's all about the Democrats or it's all about the Republicans. Everyone else either has to pretend they're one or the other or be entirely marginalized. As just one example, there is virtually no support for social democracy in the American system.

And, of course, with this either/or setup it's easy to make exaggerations: "oh, the Democrats are taking America down the road to communism/socialism!" or "oh, the Republicans are militaristic expansionist unilateral voodoo economists!" When you don't have anyone in between or on the fringes (e.g. there is nothing in American politics that truly leaves the center on the left), then it's easy to characterize your only opponent as worse than they really are. Much of this is due to the fact you don't have anyone truly moderating anyone, when instead you have polarization: there is no compromise, no moderation—only getting your way or not getting it. Either America is governed from the centre or it's governed from the right. It can't ever rest anywhere.

Now this is what I call good satire.

Apparently, this is in Tuscon.

I think he should next use an image of the twin towers burning with the tagline "Rush Limbaugh, Flying Right"?

It's kind of surreal in that it's very polarized and at the same time both major parties really do not behave much differently then the other when in power. Both parties are well aware that the % needed to win control is actually very small. 2 maybe 3% can often mean being in control or playing obstructionist (or acting like you're playing obstructionist so folks back home will re-elect you.)

A Message To Sarah Palin from Media Matters CEO David Brock | Media Matters for America

go to the link for the clip version.

I'm going to bet she sticks with Facebook, Twitter and video messages. Her debate skills are lacking.

As a Palin fan, I love this. I watched MSNBC after Obama's speech last night and a bit this morning - Palin's coverage seemed to be close to equal of Obama's coverage. Not bad for an unemployed politician from Wasila, Alaska. Palin's monologue was memorable, love it or hate it, Obama's speech was very forgettable.

Often sage advise goes ignored around here, but Like I said before -if those who hate Palin want her to fade out of the public eye the best thing to do is simply ignore her. She is never going to stop fighting back, and those of us who love her - love that the most. The more she is targeted, the more she will be the focus and you can bet one thing for certain - I am going to stand with her. If you folks want the "tone" changed - it is your move.

right, because conservatives are never responsible for anything: they're always reactive; they're always the victim.

that's idiotic.

maybe a viewpoint on this from outside the conservative delusion-o-rama:

here's the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...tor-politician

So, ace, you love her carefully manufactured messages? I suppose the most recent video was well made. I wonder how much it cost her. I'm also wondering if this is a turning point in the "is she going to run/isn't she going to run" question.

Are you not concerned about her ability to handle situations on the fly, or her ability to process new information and think about it critically?

Anyway, it's difficult to ignore such a dangerous and misleading voice in American politics. Not that it matters. Ignoring her won't change much. If anything, she'll sell that as "the elite's indifference/apathy regarding the problems facing America." She might not be the best debater, but she certainly knows how to push the conservative populist rhetoric.

We don't want her to go away. We want her to stay in the forefront so that maybe she'll run for President in 2012

For the record I do not hate Palin. I understand she's a mother, a wife, someones daughter. She has kids I'm sure they love their mother, as they should. I do not like her public persona, not even sure if she buys all the BS she's shoveling. I think much of what she says is very uneducated and ill advised and misinformed. I also think much of what she says hurts the country way more then it helps. But I would feel bad if someone decided to preform an act of violence towards her or family. That would likely hurt the country more then anything she's done.. so far.

I agree with Derwood, right now I'm hoping she runs in 2012. But only because I believe the vast majority of US voters do not buy her line of BS.

No. And Palin goes beyond simply being conservative, Bush had this trait also. Some of us don't care about what others want us to be or what others want us to say. We will not compromise on matters of importance and we will not walk away from a confrontation. But on the other hand if you give respect you get respect.

Again Palin is not a victim, she is a fighter. Your problem and others have this problem as well is your lack of experience in dealing with people you will go toe to toe with you and give it back. You get flabbergasted, wondering why don't people like Palin just go away - we have already proven she is not worthy? So the question for folks like you is are you able to employ a different approach, one that might help you accomplish your goals.

Palin goes from obscurity to national prominence with no real, according to folks like you, talent, education, sophistication, connections, special privilege, or whatever - something you can't do or 99.9999999999% of the people on this planet, and she is the idiotic one???? Right! Sure you don't wanna re-think that one? You will never appreciate how humorous this is given the incoherence you and others present on the Palin issue.

She's got the folks behind her that will ignore most of her mistakes and focus any, however slight, mistake the other side makes. Really it's the same people that stood by Bush regardless of how poorly he preformed. Good news is they only make up about 1/3 of the voters right now. Palin will need to really rally her base, she not going to win over any new folks. This why she sticks to Facebook and Fox News. She and her people know when she gets in front of any other audience she's seen for what she is... an empty pant suit.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------


Wow, you may have something there. Or she became popular with a % of the country after McCain (who's probably still kicking himself in the ass) picked her name out of a hat as a last ditched effort to save his failing campaign.

If you believe she did this because she has some special talent then maybe you believe William Hung became a household name because he sang "She bang" so well.

Except I don't view her as an empty pantsuit. I view her as a descendant (voodoo econonecromancer?) of Reagan. I get the feeling, however, that she will go beyond Reagan. She wants to be like Reagan if he were a Tea Partier. So basically Reagan but without any Keynesian sense.

a little bit of street art commentary from san francisco:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/_lmc/53...ream/lightbox/


and ace, dear, there was no particular commentary about palin as a person in anything that's been said until now in this thread.
it's amazing how the far right has to shift what they're arguing against onto more childish grounds before they can get traction.
it's like some intellectual tic. o wait, that's too smart: let's restate that so that it's fucking idiotic and then we can have at it.
over and over. it's beyond tiresome.

Man, she is no Reagan. When she speaks to a crowd other then her fan base it usually does not go well. This is why she sticks to that fan base. She makes attempts to increase it but every time she makes a little progress she ends up stepping in it and she ends up loosing more then she gained. I think we'll see poll numbers over the next few months that will show this hurt her... big time.

Yes.

I doubt her intent was to run when she resigned as governor. I assumed she wanted to write her book, go on the speaking tour, then go back to Alaska and live happily ever after. Problem is in her personality. "You" won't leave her alone and she can't walk away from a fight. I understand, because I have the same personality.

Certainly I would be concerned. No one person is perfect, hence you need a good team. Understanding her personality she would need some strong willed people with diplomatic skills on her team. With Obama, I have always said he needed some people with real world business experience on his team. Bush needed Chaney, a pitbull, on his team.

I disagree. She is a voice of reason in my view. She is a real person who understands dealing with issues that normal people confront daily. She is not a belt way insider, she is not an academic, she is not a "blue blood" - she is so refreshing to listen to because she is a reflection of real people.

You finally get it.

You almost show that you get it here. It is not rhetoric. With Palin and those of us who support her, we take these issues very seriously. As I often say regarding Obama and why I don't understand him is that his words have no meaning and are not connected to his actions. Liberals live in a world of rhetoric, I don't.

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Careful of what you wish for. Palin is a winner. I would never bet against her.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------

You repeat a narrative regarding being uneducated, ill advised and misinformed that is inconsistent with her actual accomplishments. How do you reconcile this? You can't, and you never ask the pundits you revere to do it.

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

I look at the big picture. I will ignore mistakes of little significance - as long as she is on the right side of the major issues.

After 9/11, it was one issue - national security. I supported the war in Iraq and the way he executed the war. When he ran for re-election, he said he would "stay the course" - that is what I wanted. Issues like Gitmo, wiretaps, the Plame matter were of little significance to me. I did not care that he was not a great speech maker. You suggest that trivial matters is how you would measure a leader - I find that problematic.


Who is William Hung?

How do you know what I except of people I do respect?

Palin, just like Bush used to, opens her mouth and stupid comments flow. Everything from claiming Putin was invading US air space in Alaska to claiming we need to stick with our North Korean allies. Every politician makes gaffs, everyone really make missteps in their speaking. But I truly believe Palin is clueless on a lot of issues. Her answers are just too far out there, too constant to simply be mistakes.

You want to support her, great. Count me out.

So, is your narrative that she is some kind of evil genius who can fake her way into the WH?

Please, I hope she has no Keynesian sense. It hasn't been working to well for our economy under Obama.

William Hung is the singing equivalent of Palin the politican.

I'm not going to go around and around with you Ace. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. Let's leave it at that, ok?

Nice tone...bet you predicted some kind of retort...yet all of this is beyond tiresome...mmmmmm...what is the common definition of insanity?

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

We have a history here, I read what you write.

Let get real for a moment. Is there any human on this planet who is an expert on every issue? No. Are there some issues where everyone is clueless, even the people you respect the most? Yes. So what are you really saying? Nothing. Again you are just repeating a narrative - one that you have never challenged. I simply suggest that you actively question what you hear.

A voice of reason? Her modus operandi is banking on emotions. A real person who understands dealing with issues that normal people confront daily? You mean like not having access to health care? Does she support the PPACA or was she more about the single-payer/public option?

Finally? I always understood this.

It's not rhetoric? Are you saying that Palin is generally sincere in all her communications to the public?

How so? Obama has kept more promises than he's broken.

Your posting history begs to differ. And all politicians tend to live in a world of rhetoric, at least publicly. The issue isn't whether there is rhetoric, the issue is the methods and themes of the rhetoric, as is the goal. I think Palin's goals are, more often than not, to impassion people, not inform them.

If he were the equivalent, people would be talking about him. I hear people talking about Lady GaGa or Justin Beaver-I don't really follow current pop music those are the only two I know. Oh, there is that rapper who said Bush hates black people - South Park did a really funny show involving him - I guess he thinks he is a genius but is really somewhat mentally challenged.

No, you leave it. Like I said if the tone is to change, it is your move.

No, I think she's trying to evoke Reagan. She wants to return to Reaganomics. If she runs for president, this will be her theme and focus.

How do you know? It's quite possible it has pulled you out of oblivion.

even some more rational conservatives are critical of palin's tightly stage-managed narcissism:

Christie says Palin needs to let loose – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

here's another compendium of negative reactions to yesterday's video instance of tightly stage-managed paliny narcissism:

Sarah Palin Says Media Guilty of ?Blood Libel?: Why Her Speech Was Off-Key - The Daily Beast

and this is more or less the statement you saw everywhere this morning:

Barack Obama takes opportunity Sarah Palin missed - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com



the sort of things ace thinks excellent about sarah palin are among the many things that will prevent her from ever becoming president.

but i hope she keeps talking and talking.
she damages the right.
i like things that damage the right.

Great leaders know how to stir emotion. Emotion is a wonderful thing, you seem to suggest that it is not???

Without getting into a healthcare debate here - in general are you suggesting that there is only one way to solve problems?

That was not made clear to me.

Yes.

Like changing the tone in Washington? I don't keep a tick list of his promises, I measure a leader on a small number of big things. We are at war, that issue is number one - his leadership is lacking. The economy is suffering and he is not showing leadership. Spending is out of control and he has made it worse.

I can agree with that. What is it that you think is in her current job description?

It is only through great passion can people change the world. Historically, great leaders stir passion. But, passion isn't your issue is it? Isn't your fear that she stirs passion in a direction counter to your world views? Isn't that why so many liberals fear Palin? Isn't that what the whole tone debate is all about?

---------- Post added at 08:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

Yes, that is what she says...yes, that is why, in part, I support her...is this a revelation?

An oblivion created in his own mind.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

I have already said Palin goes beyond simple conservatism. I could careless what weak kneed people think. And, if strong kneed people give constructive input in a respectful manner it will be received with respect.

strong-kneed people? what?

right, people who see the world in simple-minded terms and tell you that your simple-mindedness is ok too. people like this:

The 'new' rhetoric of Islamophobia - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

ace, I said she banks on emotions. Emotions play a role in everything, but in her case they are the focus. The empower her, embolden her. They make her world go 'round.

Maybe voodoo economics will bring on a rising tide that lifts all boats and all you wonderful Americans will be able to afford the best health care system in the world. You know, instead of it being the best thing on one hand and an embarrassment on the other.

However, I hope the Giffordses can afford it right now.

by the way, not that it matters i suppose, but christina green's funeral was today:

Services held for youngest victim of Arizona mass shootings - CNN.com

so everything is not, apparently, about sarah palin. how about that?

and there were riots in tunisia today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/wo...ef=global-home
the president, who's been in power since 1987, announced he's not going to seek "re-election" in 2014 and also that prices on staple products were going to be controlled and lowered. because people were rioting over the effects of neo-liberal policies, you see. you know, the way they float all boats by helping the poor starve.

meanwhile, in another example of upside-down world thinking, laurent gbagbo still won't step down as president of the ivory coast. last week, he was trying to blame the united nations for genocide by noting how they keep showing up where they happen. today, the un was attacked in abidjan:

Côte d'Ivoire : les forces de l'ONU attaquées par le camp Gbagbo - LeMonde.fr

but i'm sure there's no connection between the rhetoric of violence and what people do. why it wouldn't be fair to say that.

BOOM! Just wanted to break this up for a second.

I took a bit of a breather from this because I was getting stuck in it.

Jared is responsible for his own actions. Despite whatever instabilities he may or may not have, he brought a gun to a political event intending to kill people, and that's what he did. Sarah Palin isn't responsible for it, President Obama isn't responsible for it, and Ron Paul isn't responsible for it. Like virtually every other political assassination in America's history, this was the act of an individual operating for apparent reasons which are basically divorced from reality. That doesn't mean his actions weren't political, they were, or that his actions are divorced in every way from the discourse, but here we are.

If any discussion aside from sharing our despair and frustration with the tragedy should be brought up, perhaps it should be questions of gun control as pertaining specifically to mental illness. There may be something constructive to come from that discussion if we don't let entrenched partisan bullshit end the debate before it begins.

The issue of murderous discourse coming from the right's disingenuous response to being out of power probably should have it's own thread. I'll be starting that thread in a moment.

This conversation reminds me of a magic necktie that I used to own.

It was kind of a matte red type deal with thin blue stripes. I don't remember where I got it, or even if it was mine or whether it was something someone left at my house.

Anyways, it was magic because no matter how many times I untied it, it would always miraculously retie itself.

The thing about double windsor knots: they look like solid and dignified - like maybe they could hold some weight. And any well-tied tie can hold its own when subject to the uncritical, everyday stresses of normal wear and tear. However, one pull in the right place and they completely unravel.

Occasionally, I'd be tidying up around the house and see this tie and want to put it away. I don't know why. It wasn't like the tie was hurting anything, just sitting there, existing. I wasn't even sure if the tie was mine; maybe if I left it out long enough, someone else would take care of it. Nevertheless, nine times out of ten I'd see it, pick it up, bring it to my closet, give it a well placed tug and with the buttery sound of ribbon rubbing against ribbon it would unravel and I'd be ready to put it away. But then all of a sudden, as I moved to place it in my closet, it would be retied. I'm not even sure how it happened, the timescale on which occurred seemed instantaneous. I'd be looking at it the whole time and it was just a flat piece of ribbon one instant and the next it was back in double windsor.

Sometimes I'd sit in front of my closet for hours unraveling the tie over and over again. It didn't always retie into a windsor either. Sometimes it would retie itself into some sort of exotic tangle so convoluted that I would spend hours straightening it out. Even though I knew that untying the tie would be useless because it would retie itself and I'd be back at square one, I was driven by a compulsive need for the tie to be untied, and geez, it was usually so easy to untie, and easy in a way that was also satisfying.

Eventually, after untold hours of therapy, I reached a point where I could mostly just ignore the tie when I saw it. I'd come across it, look it over and imagine how it would feel, the smooth friction of shiny fabric reverberating through my fingertips and up my forearm as I pulled the knot into oblivion. I'd let this thought wash over me for an instant, and then I'd remember how difficult it was to stop untying once I'd gotten started and I'd just keep walking.

I love you filthy

Mmmm, this is just so sad. Most of all I feel for the parents of that 9 year old girl. I can't imagine I would last very long on this earth if someone took my daughter from me, they are stronger than myself and hopefully can keep that strength. My family will be keeping all these people in our thoughts.

:eek: watch the rhetoric there. you just incited me to spill my coffee.

but yeah, i think a new thread separating this specific shooting from the rhetoric is fitting.

That's good to hear, because I am partially powered by pig love!

I'm sure you also would include the ultra-left as well, since they tend to create a bunch of 'laws' that provide all sorts of exemptions for their favored groups, right?

dk--actually i wouldn't. first because in the united states there's no such thing as a coherent left. it is, like it or not, a single party state with two right wings. and second...well...have you read the plato dialogue? because there's two different discussions that could be had, basically, depending on your answer.

it's worth reading. should give you tea partiers pause, thinking about this kind of power, the one you see, the one you don't...the superficial populism behind which is the same old same old far right deep pockets fascists.

Can you explain this please? I'm already confused with left right discussions because it to me isn't very descriptive, this makes even more confusion for me.

relative to any western european country, the united states has never had a political left that formed mass political parties on the order of even the social-democrats, not to speak of places like france and italy which had major communist parties through the 1980s (they're still around but have hemmoraged people and voters)....in france now, the most dynamic left political organization is probably lutte ouvrière, which is a trotskyist organization.

there's simply nothing like that in the states. the democratic party is basically a centrist nationalist party, kind of like the udf in france. mainstream republicans are more or less like the gaullists, the other moderate-conservative political party. and the tea party is a point-for-point correlate of the front national, the neo-fascist party.

class politics have been far more reactionary in the united states than in western europe since the 1950s as well, and this as a simple function of the american choice of sector monopoly for union organizing. western europe has trade union pluralism, which means that there are multiple unions active within the same industrial sector--they've fought with each other for position across the language of radical politics.

it's from that kind of viewpoint---france happens to be the country the politics of which i know best outside the united states.

you have similar perceptions from our canadian comrades though.

this is just a horrifically reactionary country at the level of mass politics....the options are FAR more conservative and one-dimensional than people are.

but you'd never know (and the folk who operate the machinery wouldn't either) because the us has transformed its politics into a type of consumer relation...so there's no feedback loop that's not affirming of one consumer choice or another.

Cynth: He's saying there's a corporatist, authoritarian Republican party and an authoritarian, corporatist Democratic party; Jack Johnson and John Jackson, if you will, each with eerily similar underlying ideologies and each falsely representing a wide spectrum which is actually very narrow. Which is the party of ending wiretapping? Which is the party of campaign finance reform? Which is the party of ending the war in Afghanistan? Which is the party of ending or limiting corporate personhood? Which is the party of raising taxes on the rich? Which is the party of not torturing?

Noam Chomsky once wrote:
Anyone outside of this spectrum of acceptable opinion, which exists between the two parties in our two-party system, would appear to be extremist or "fringe".

This is an illustration that might help Americans put Canada into perspective:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...pectrum_MM.gif

You will notice the three main political parties in Canada listed: Conservative, Liberal, and NDP. There are also major parties in Quebec that reside left of centre and close to where the NDP resides.

You will see that the Republicans are to the right of Canada's Conservatives, and that the Democrats occupy the centre between the NDP and the Liberals. This is often the case, though I would say that the Liberal party is often more left than the Democrats.

In America, you have no real option anywhere where the NDP resides. The NDP is a social democratic party that has significant influence in Canadian politics both on the provincial and federal levels. A major focus of theirs is on the status of working-class and poor Canadians.

You have two choices in America: the centre (which sometimes leans left but often must capitulate to the right) and the right. There is no real left option.

Wait, then how can Obama be a Commie Fascists? There's something wrong with your image.

you can go so far right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that in the end you are left and vicey versy.:eek: In other words it may not always be a straight line but circular to where on some levels you are far left and some you are far right. That was something we learned in 10th grade World History. Hitler and Stalin were not that much politically different but the line would say they were polar opposites, which is not accurate either.

---------- Post added at 05:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 AM ----------

She and her mouth are the reason the GOP will not win in 2012 and she will with Beck destroy any chances the Tea Party may have to become legitimate (I know some here believe it will never be, but IMHO Beck and Palin seem to be working hard to make sure it isn't taken seriously and truly doesn't do anything, except appear as some ridiculous parody of what it is truly about

I'm not sure. I see a chance for a Romney, Huckabee or a Pawlenty to step out and tell the nation "these folks are nuts, vote for me." Honestly I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet and I'd bet most voters are not either.

As for the Tea Party it may have started out as a "grass roots" movement but even if it did it's not that now, it's been hijacked by big money and influence.

This turned into a political discussion? I think it would be appropriate to keep the topic on the folks that were hurt and murdered by this man in Tuscon, not who is going to capitalize on it politically.

I hope so, Beck and Palin scare me...lol then again I scare easily.

This I agree with, Levin, Beck, Palin, Fox News, etc. all seemed to see money could be made off the fringe tea partiers, who joined because they just wanted to be heard. The ironic thing is that, by their own guulibility they have been easily led by the aforementioned, and have had their views twisted.