If Sarah Palin were a member state of the UN she would be condemned daily by the General Assembly for transgressions both real and imagined.
Sarah Palin has supplanted George W. Bush as the most polarizing figure in American politics. This despite the fact Bush has not yet left the White House.
She is someone who does not inspire feelings of indifference or neutrality. You either love Palin or you hate her.
Those who love Sarah Palin will drive hundreds of miles in inclement weather and wait for hours on end just to hear her speak.
Those who hate Sarah Palin will go to the ends of the earth to destroy her.
If Sarah Palin were a member state of the UN she would be condemned daily by the General Assembly for transgressions both real and imagined. This, in part, makes Sarah Palin the Israel of American politics.
Those who hate Israel are prepared to believe any unkind word said about it. If Israel-haters are told that Israelis use the blood of Palestinian children to make Purim pastries they accept it as the gospel truth. Those who hate Sarah Palin are prepared to believe any unkind word said about her. When unnamed sources from the McCain campaign were alleged to have said that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent, the Palin haters accepted it as an article of faith. Never mind that Palin led an effort to have Alaska divest its holdings in the Darfur region of Sudan. Those who hate Palin are not interested in the truth. They are interested only in seeing grievous harm come to her.
Some of the disdain directed towards Palin has all the quality of high school gossip. How else does one explain the story that Palin allegedly answered the door to her hotel room wearing only a bathrobe? When that wasn't sensational enough it was then said that Palin answered the door wearing only a towel. I would not be surprised if it is alleged that Palin was in the hotel room partying with the Rolling Stones a la Margaret Trudeau. It would be funny if it weren't so frightening.
People who hate are irrational. When people are irrational they will believe any and every negative thing tossed down the chute regardless of its merit and feasibility. They believe such things because they want to believe them. If you throw enough mud against the wall some of it will stick. This mud represents the debris of hate. Unfortunately, it is this debris that fertilizes the seeds of doubt the haters have planted. When it fertilizes, otherwise decent people begin to believe as fact things that are indisputably false. This is the essence of hatred. If something is said loud enough and often enough people will come to believe it without question. If it is fertilized with enough intensity people will act on these false beliefs with tragic consequences. My people paid the highest price imaginable for the fertilization of hatred. Fortunately, Sarah Palin and her family have not been met with any violence (so far). But make no mistake. There are people who hate Sarah Palin enough that they would be overjoyed if she or her family members were physically, if not fatally attacked.
It is perhaps fitting that a small Israeli flag is mounted on the window of Governor Palin's office. If nothing else it is surely a testament to her moral fiber. The Israeli flag symbolizes a nation that rose out of the fertilized ashes of hatred that stoked the Holocaust. The Israeli flag symbolizes a people who were knocked down and counted out but got back up bigger and stronger than before. Israel succeeds despite the wishes of those who want it to die.
In this respect, Sarah Palin is the Israel of American politics in another way. While there are those who wish to see Palin excised from political life it doesn't prevent her from carrying forward and working earnestly to make Alaska more prosperous and successful for its people. Sarah Palin is part of a long line of Alaskans who have accomplished on frozen tundra what Israelis have done in the desert. Although Alaskans do not have the kind of problems with their neighbors the Israelis have, they too have thrived in less than hospitably optimal conditions.
What doesn't kill Sarah Palin will make her stronger. There is some speculation that Palin might attempt to replace Ted Stevens in the U.S. Senate. But why become a Washington insider now? The liberal media and a handful of conservative critics won't accept Palin as a junior Senator anymore than they accept her as a Governor. Just as Israel's Muslim neighbors aren't going to suddenly accept the Jewish state if a Palestinian one is created alongside it. Sarah Palin's greatest chance for continued success and that of Alaska is to succeed on her own terms. She can build on her existing achievements by remaining Governor and running for re-election in 2010. If she can do this and it turns out Barack Obama isn't the second coming then he would be wise watch out for her in 2012.
Much of the world would rejoice if Israel were to be wiped off the map. But guess what? The world has to deal with Israel whether it likes it or not. Israel is not going away. Much of the American liberal establishment plus a few conservatives on the cocktail circuit would rejoice if Sarah Palin were to be wiped off the political map. But guess what? The American liberal establishment and their tiny entourage of conservative fellow travelers have to deal with Sarah Palin whether they like it or not. Sarah Palin is not going away.
"If Sarah Palin were a member state of the UN she would be condemned daily by the General Assembly for transgressions both real and imagined. This, in part, makes Sarah Palin the Israel of American politics."
not alone, the whole world wide diplomatic staff wouldn't want to get into a discussion with her, you know why ? because of "hellawww". I would like to watch how she would be able to "charm" a cold Putin
Love her or hate her? Not me. I just don't care anymore. I was somewhat excited when she was picked, but now that it's over I don't care much what happens to her. Obama will be president and in 2 or 3 years we will start all over again.
Mr. Goldstein,
Unlike Mr. Ivanovich in comment #2, I do care what happens to Sarah Palin. She is a self-promoting, media-generated public figure who should not be allowed anywhere near national public office.
She continues to reinforce this perception every time she gives an interview or appears in public. The latest case in point is the disaster at the RGC here in Miami last Friday, where she recited her campaign stump speech to amazed and incredulous governors and media in an attempt to "rally the Party".
Does the GOP really want a fuzzy-thinking (Curic interview), poorly educated (gift degree after attending a string of second rate colleges), anti-science, far right, "true believer" who provides verbatim text for political skits on SNL to be a standard bearer for the Party?
Please understand, this is not being "mean". These are facts. Her level of demonstrated incompetence would have torpedoed most candidates long ago. But the far wing is desperate.
If Palin does come back, it should be as something other than a national level politician (perhaps she could just stay in Alaska as a local station talk show host). The majority of people in this country are fed up with her clueless arrogance (as demonstrated in her belief that she did not need help to prepare for the disastrous Curic interview).
As long as that is the case, she cannot be elected to nation office, so why waste the time in continuing to promote her?
Latest example of Palin's skill at public speaking:
"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also."
Yes indeed, lets make this woman President.
I have to say that the Palin bathrobe/towel story is straight out of the locker room and was no doubt conceived by some sweaty pervert who fancies himself an illuminati journalist. He's probably unable to control himself at the very mention.
DrWilson, you just proved the thesis of this story! "Those who hate Sarah Palin are prepared to believe any unkind word said about her."
Your quote about Sarah Palin was made up, you got the quote from a piece of satire written on http://www.borowitzreport.com/ titled "Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy"
mr_jrj, You are quite correct. The source you cite is not where I got the quote, but I see from your reference that it was originally written as satire. (The quote was e-mailed to me by a friend without accurate attribution.)
Given Sarah Palin's performances on national television over the last few months, this quotation seemed perfectly plausible to me, and I did not bother to check the original source. I apologize for using it and will try to be more careful with sources in the future.
However, have you thought about why it is that Sarah Palin inspires such satire? Judging from her many appearances on national television, and on the RGC and SNL examples cited in my post above, she does not seem capable of thinking very clearly, does she?. And there are a number of other things not mentioned in my above post #3 that are disturbing about Sarah Palin.
I mention one other major concern here. On the record, she has advocated the teaching of intelligent design in pubic school science class. This is in spite of the fact that teaching of ID in public schools has been deemed unconstitutional.
From this and other actions and pronouncements she has made, it is pretty clear that Sarah Palin is a creationist. Educated creationists (even poorly educated creationists), by definition, have serious problems with logical thought and reasoning.
On the bright side, there is a large constituency in this country that would very much like to see a Palin bid for President in 2012. Unfortunately for Palin, it consists primarily of majority party Democrats.
DrWilson
You are really a piece of work! No sooner do you admit to telling a lie, then you tell another one. I saw her answer that question about ID and it was nothing like what you describe. I don't remember her exact words, but it was something to the effect of if the question of ID came up in a classroom the teacher could address it in a respectful way. I'm not a proponent of ID and I’ve already said I don’t care about Ms. Palin, but it’s clear that people like you just like to smear anyone that represents an opposition to your secular humanist ideology. Provide some citations for her words and the unconstitutionality claim or quit this crap.
Hello Ivan,
As to the unconstitutionality of teaching ID in schools, please see the decision of Judge John Jones III in US Federal Court in the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (reference URL shown below).
As you will see, not only did the judge rule that the teaching of ID was unconstitutional, because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state, he also stated that in his opinion the promoters of ID had lied under oath about their intent in advocating such teachings. All in all this whole case was a pretty miserable showing for the ID crowd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
As to Sarah Palin advocating the teaching of ID in school, there are a number of sources including transcripts from a debate when she was running for governor of Alaska. Two references to these statements are shown below.
http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html
Finally, it is not my intent to smear Sarah Palin. A smear consists of half truths and lies. As in this post, I have based my statements and opinions regarding Ms. Palin on what I believe to be verifiable facts. I did make a mistake in posting the quote in post #4 and regret doing so without a closer check of the source. I have apologized.
In terms of demonstrating that Palin less than qualified for national public office, she does a great job of that all on her own. My intent is to draw attention to her shortcomings because I truly believe that she would be an unmitigated disaster in any national office.
Hmm. DrWilson – DrKilovolt.
Coincidence?
Hmm HMM.
As in this post, I have based my statements and opinions regarding Ms. Palin on what I believe to be verifiable facts
What you believed to be a "verifiable fact" turned out to be a satirical comedy sketch. The difference between "what I believe to be a verifiable fact" and what actually is a verifiable fact is distinct. Accepting a characterization of a person based on what you "believe" to be "verifiable facts" is quite obviously frought with potential inaccuracies. For example, you obviously believe yourself to be intelligent. Case closed.
Patrick,
Intelligence does not imply infallibility. As an intelligent individual, I was more than willing to admit my mistake, when shown to be wrong, and to take full responsibility. This is more than can be said for MS. Palin.
For a CBS News short list of (intentional or unintentional, take you pick) lies and mischaracterizations made by Sarah Palin during the campaign as of Sept. 4 (none of which, to my knowledge, she has apologized for or taken any responsibility whatsoever), please see:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml
And there are thousands more just like it. So, when Palin admits that she really was in favor of the "bridge to nowhere" and accepted the federal money for it, or when she admits that proximity to Alaska does not give her foreign policy experience, or to any of the dozens of other exaggerations, lies, and mischaracterizations she has made in public, then I will reconsider your comments with regard to my intelligence (or hers). Until then, Sarah Palin, in my view and in the view of most informed voters, ranks as the least qualified candidate to seek high national office in living memory.
In the first place, several of the references in the CBS News list are outrightly incorrect (including the attribution of authorship to Obama of a bill he did not, in fact, author, but merely co-sponsored) or, at best, subjective. In the second place, a similar list of incorrect, fallacious, or downright stupid rmarks could be compiled for MR Obama (I'm assuming that we're dropping honorific titles because we're such mature, above-the-fray intellectuals – so it's MS Palin and MR Obama, I guess), could it not? His parents at Selma? The 57 states? His never-convened foreign relations subcommittee? The non-existent article and photograph that inspired him to enter politics? His uncle liberating Auschwitz in WWII? To compile a full list would probably crash the database on which this website is run.
Sarah Palin, in my view and in the view of most informed voters, ranks as the least qualified candidate to seek high national office in living memory.
I can't suppose, as you do, to know the thoughts and feelings of "most informed voters". However, I can't help but wonder if these people speak for that "informed majority" to which you refer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://howobamagotelected.com/
Personally, I think the less-than-one-term senator who was running for the actual presidency possessed significantly fewer qualifications than anyone who has ever sought the office. Lest we forget that, like MS Palin, MR Carter was a single-term governor when he won the presidency. I wasn't even alive during the Carter administration and it seems my memory is still better than yours…
Hello Patrick,
By qualified, I simply refer to the basic capability to speak in complete sentences when off script, know the name of at least one magazine or newspaper that you read (and not make the ridiculous claim that you 'read them all'), answer an asked question during a national televised debate instead of saying that you want to talk about something else and then going back to your memorized talking points, have simple facts at your disposal such as the countries that are located in North America, know who Hamas is, understand that the "teach both" mantra of the ID advocates has been ruled unconstitutional, understand that geographic proximity to a foreign country does not constitute foreign policy experience with that country, have the intelligence and courtesy not to recite your well-worn campaign stump speech to a gathering of Republican governors after you have helped their party lose an election, etc. The list of such capabilities demonstrated to be lacking in Sarah Palin goes on and on.
To be judged as qualified, one must at least appear to be qualified in manner and speech. From her winking at the audience during a national debate, to her sometimes disjointed or even incoherent speech, Palin simply cannot be judged as qualified.
Patrick, I am a pretty old guy, and was a Republican for most of my life. Believe me, I have never, ever, seen a candidate for national office as poorly prepared to conduct a national campaign, and as apparently clueless as to these deficiencies, as was Sarah Palin.
I intend this be my last post to this thread. I wish to acknowledge that Aaron Goldstein very kindly contacted me by personal e-mail and we have discussed our relative views of Ms. Palin. Mr. Goldstein is clearly a thoughtful and informed individual.
I apologized to him personally for my post #3, and he was very gracious in accepting my apology. We agreed to disagree on Sarah Palin, and I wished Mr. Goldstein continuing success in his career.
The Sarah Palin 2008 discussion is becoming less timely and less relevant by the day. The country dodged a bullet and has more important national political concerns now. As for Ms. Palin herself, we will have to wait and see what she does in 2012.
"Dodged a bullet…" Hmm, we dodged it all right, and swerved right into a mortar shell.
It's amazing to me how someone could be so cognizant of Palin's supposed failing and be so ignorant of Obama's. There's some sort of disconnect here.
DrWilson: clearly you are not DrKilovolt, so my apologies for my prior brief comment to the contrary.
MM has it. How is it that we have presented to us two individuals, one of who states their experience and background, and is thus unfairly savaged by the extremely left-leaning media; yet the other, a candidate for the highest office in the land, possessing disturbing associations and with serious blanks in his past and experience let be?
That is a gross oversight, and frankly a blatant gaming of our political system.
DrWilson,
All of the defeciencies you mentioned (and many more) could just as easily be applied to Barack Obama — the candidate for the actual presidency; an office arguably more powerful than the vice presidency. For that matter, they could be applied to a number of past presidents we've had as well. You are clearly completely incapable of assessing this person objectively (if not of any rational thought at all). It's a good thing you've switched parties – you are among like minds (using the term loosely) now.
Last Angry Man,
Had intended no more posts on this thread, but you asked a fair question. I believe we both know the answer. I will give you my version, so that you can see we are probably not so far apart on this issue.
The American voter had just suffered through an 8 year national nightmare, led by a relatively inexperienced Red State Governor who had a hard time speaking the English language and often made a fool of himself when he appeared in public. Video snippets of his speech and actions (albeit short) were routinely used for comedy on national TV. Comedians loved him.
He was a born again "true believer" with poor political instincts, and a poor judge of talent, who came across as a buffoon on the world stage. This behavior earned him some of the lowest Presidential approval ratings in history, both in this country and overseas. (Not so great if the US President is indeed supposed to be the leader of the free world.)
By any objective criteria, this man's Presidency will go down as the worst in the last 200 hundred years, and many believe there is not a close second. It was true agony for many Americans, myself included. I lived overseas (Middle East) for much of that time and would have to literally leave the room when he would come on TV when in the company of locals.
As you can see by comparing my objections to Palin above to my description of GWB here, more than any other candidate, she showed the same shortcomings and characteristics that the country came to dislike so much in GWB. She appeared to most Americans to be more of the same, only more so.
You are correct in that Obama was a relatively risky choice, especially compared to many more experienced candidates in the past. However, he is intelligent, well educated, well informed, speaks well off script, and is not seen as a religious "true believer". In short, Obama is the near opposite of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.
I am a registered Independent. Every Republican, and Independent I know, and even a few conservative Democrats that I know, who voted for Obama, decided to do so, completely, or in part, because of Sarah Palin. She was directly responsible for the largest one-day campaign funding influx the Democrats had during the entire campaign. (She helped lose the election in so many ways.)
So, the answer is: in the election of 2008, folks decided to go with the devil they didn't know. This is because in many ways they felt they knew McCain, and especially the one-heartbeat-away VP candidate, all too well. And after being badly disappointed twice by GWB and the Republican Party, they had really had enough of both.
.
A fair answer, and thank you.
MM,
Great comment on the morter shell.
Hope you are wrong.
I hope I am wrong about Obama as well. The more we learn, the worse it looks.
But I don't make my assessments based on what the mainstream media tells me. Everything you have had to say about Palin (and now Bush) is verbatim talking points of the political left, parroted endlessly by talking heads and leftist politicians. Endless repetition gives an aura of truth.
There's no doubt that Bush left much to be desired as a president. He acted just like a free-spending liberal. He began his presidency by reaching out to his enemies… a huge mistake that set the tone for the rest of his administration. He created an entire new entitlement (perscription drugs).
But he also deserves much credit for fighting terrorists and preventing another attack on our soil. A+ grade. That alone may be enough to salvage his legacy.
Worst president in history? C'mon. Do you remember Carter? There are so many other contenders for the worst president. William Henry Harrison, Patrick Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce? Even Clinton would rate lower than Bush.
MM,
Just because something is noted by a lot of people (or parroted, to use your terminology) does not mean that it is not factual or important.
As for sources for my view of Palin (with one glaring exception), I have restricted my source material to broadcast TV interviews (including those used by SNL), court records, and Alaska newspaper reports, etc. No cable political opinion shows or the like were cited. I did not cite broadcast commentators such as Curic or Brokaw. In fact, along with with the rest of the country, I watched her slow motion campaign and post campaign train wreck with my own eyes in near real-time.
As for Bush, I was overseas and not exposed to the MSM for much of his administration. My opinions of Bush formed largely from foreign TV and reading the International Herald Tribune, as well as conversing with local Americans who were in the military, and colleagues over the internet.
DrWilson,
I quote myself: "Everything you have had to say about Palin (and now Bush) is verbatim talking points of the political left…" I did not say "a lot of people." I did not suggest that there was a general consensus from people of all across the political spectrum. I did not imply that these assessments were even-handed and fair.
I said that your remarks are exactly the same thing that Palin's enemies and detractors say.
I will further say that your sample is skewed based on who you associate with, or what is filtered through your worldview, or a kneejerk reaction. A New York socialite, upon learning that Kerry lost to Bush in 2004, exclaimed, "But everyone I know voted for Kerry!"
You are making your judgments based on faulty, biased, and incomplete information. Period. I don't really care how confident you are in them.
I also note that you do not have a comment regarding your "worst president" assessment.
MM,
Agree. My views are biased by who I associate with, as are yours. If we want to talk about "objective reality" instead of "biased personal views based on objective reality", then we can turn to large data sets (polls and election results), or metadata sets (statistical analyses of many polls, the results from which can somehow be normalized).
According to every poll I can find (See Gallup Poll Nov. 13, for example), Palin is still rated unfavorably by more than half of the US voter population(i.e. most voters).
As for G.W. Bush as the worst President, my comments were again based on polling data. Judging from poll results and reinforced by events at the G20 Conference yesterday, if I am wrong about GWB, it is not by much.
(In an unprecedented show of distain for GWB and the US yesterday, many world leaders at the G20 would not even shake Bush's hand.)
MM
You may be interested in a poll of historians regarding the GWB Presidency. After all it is the historians who will eventually give GWB his place in history.
Doesn't look too good, and this was written before the latest economic meltdown. As you will see, an unprecedented 98% said that the GWB Presidency had failed. In fact, even before his latest drop in the opinion poles, he was rated worst President ever.
See:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
DrWilson,
Conservatives must work much harder than leftists to find information more in keeping with their worldview, since most of it is redacted by a hostile MSM. Conservatives must be much more tolerant than leftists, because conservatives exist in a left-leaning information environment. As a result, conservatives better understand the opposition viewpoint than do leftists understand conservatives.
Therefore, conservatives are more well rounded intellectually, better consumers of information, and more able to think about varying points of view.
Ok, polls. If Bush or Palin have a low favorability rating, it is largely because the left-leaning media have been pounding on them relentlessly. Polls are simply the measurement of how well the MSM have disseminated their propaganda.
I'm not complaining about legitimate criticism. That is the role of the press. But the press has to be an equal-opportunity criticizer. However, the MSM have been only too willing to simply pass on democratic talking points as if they were news.
That is why I am troubled by your presentation. When I read leftwing blogs and MSM reporting and find they are nearly verbatim, something's wrong. Then I read your posts and find exactly the same things. I can only conclude that you are simply passing on the propaganda you obtained from leftist blogs or their MSM soulmates.
From that it is an easy matter to conclude that you are simply regurgitating leftist fables that you believe implicitly. It calls into question your intellectual skills.
Prove me wrong.
Hello Mountain Man,
To entice you to read this post in its entirety, I have included a true "conservatives win one" story at the end that I believe you will enjoy.
First of all however, proving you wrong as to my intellectual skills, or lack thereof, probably means I have to change your mind. All I can do is offer evidence.
To start with, I might mention that I have authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, co-written three successful technical books, hold a dozen or so patents, and have founded two successful technology companies, one of which was in the Middle East.
I worked for several years in weapons of mass destruction stabilization programs (IPP) for the USDOE, DoD, and State Department, including classified work on electromagnetic pulse weapons defense.
The state of one's family and children can also reflect intellectual skill. My three sons all hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees, as I do (with a post doc at MIT). All in all, I am quite comfortable with my intellectual skills.
My thinking processes and resulting conclusions might not be the same as yours. Nonetheless, they have lead to some success for me, my family, and for this country (which, contrary to what you might think, I love).
I certainly do not consider myself a leftist. I am a former Republican (now Independant). I served proudly in the USMC as a tanker and have punched a few other conservative tickets. But I suppose one's relative left or right position depends on where the observer is standing.
Again, please do not claim that I "pass on propaganda". If the information you read in my opinions looks like information on liberal blog sites, then I guess I think the same way as those authors do in many cases. As I said, my objections to Palin come from watching her directly and not from other folk's opinions.
As an apparent arch conservative (and I say that with all due respect), you might enjoy the following true story that involved my father (another arch conservative, whom I greatly admire).
In 1968, the far-left SDS was planning demonstrations (read riots) on the U of W campus in Seattle. My father is a beekeeper. In response to a request through the conservative network in Seattle, he drove about 200 miles with a load of bee hives on his truck, pulled onto the UW campus, and clamped on the brakes. This action spilled the hives off the truck, and released the (by now very angry) bees into marchers as they headed for a pile of construction debris to select their makeshift weapons for what was to follow.
This action quickly broke up what had promised to be a very destructive leftist-led student riot. Campus police (who were badly outnumbered) loved it, as did many others. My dad became and instant mini-celebrity (known for both good and evil). He was in the newspapers. Other universities (including Duke University) contacted him to find out about using bees to stop student riots.
Because of subsequent death threats from the SDS and Black Panthers, local police had to set up drive-by patrols of our home to provide round the clock protection for my parents and the younger kids. Encouraged by the local Sheriff, everyone in the family who was still at home learned to use firearms for self defense, and kept them close at hand.
Conservatives from all over the country (I am not kidding) came out in support of my dad for his near single handed break-up of the "student riot". Conservatives provided him with pro-bono legal defense in a "civil rights" law suit brought by the Seattle Times (because one of their reporters had been stung by one of his bees). One wealthy individual even put his private plane and pilot at my dad's disposal for the trial.
During the trial, it became apparent that liberal Seattle Times was really out for news copy and maybe a little right-wing conservative blood. At the high point of the trial, intent on showing that my dad was a far-right "nutjob", the Seattle Times attorney asked my dad if he was a member of the John Birch Society. My dad said "No". He was then asked if he had ever been a member. He again said "No".
The Seattle Times attorney was becoming frustrated because he had been told (incorrectly) that my dad was a "Bircher" and wanted to show that my father had strong political motivation and that the bee-spilling was no "accident".
After the third plaintiff attorney question about JBS membership, my dad's defense attorney objected. "Asked and answered, your Honor", he said. The plaintiff attorney thought he had lost the round and sat down.
Then, to the horror of his defense attorney, my always-honest father turned to the judge and said, "Your Honor, I see that the plaintiff attorney is very unhappy with me for my answers. Just so you know, the John Birch Society is far too left wing for me". The judge was stunned. My dad had just handed the Seattle Times their case on a silver platter.
But my dad knew exactly what he was doing. He had decided to make a defiant conservative statement of belief in open court in one of the most liberal cities in the US.
Needless to say, that comment brought an huge round of laughter and cheering from the mostly conservative gallery, and turned my dad from a mini-celebrity into a local conservative legend. The real meaning of his statement for the right wing was something like: "Yes, and if they try it again, we will stop them again, some way, some how".
(By the way, after this incident, there were no more SDS or Weatherman protests at U of W.)
In the end, the judge had to rule in favor of the plaintiff. With no loss of irony, he ordered my father to pay the Seattle Times the sum of ONE DOLLLAR.
We heard later that the Times had run up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the trial (a lot of money in those days,) which they had to pay themselves. Due to the generosity of conservative attorneys in the area, the whole incident only cost my dad a tank of gas.
Absolutely true story. See what I mean about relative left and right?
(Just realized that you could look up this newspaper story in the archives, and probably use it to identify me. But what the hey? You seem like a nice guy. If you were to Google my name with the proper unusual spelling, you would find that everything I have told you about my career and family is true.)
All the best to you, Mountain Man.
To start with, I might mention that I have authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, co-written three successful technical books, hold a dozen or so patents, and have founded two successful technology companies, one of which was in the Middle East.
Clearly this qualifies you as an expert in political science, and politics in general, and your opinion is therefore beyond question. I think I speak on behalf of both MountainMan and myself when I say that we fully apologize and retract our viewpoints in light of this information. Obviously it is we who are deficient and lack the deep understanding of politics that an intensive background in science entails. We now realize that Sarah Palin is, indeed, a religious fundamentalist Alaskan separatist liar with no education who cannot speak in complete sentences and has never held public office and faked the birth of her daughters illegitimate incestuous love child. Not only that, but she's ugly too. She did not graduate from a university with a degree in communications and journalism, or chair a major Alaska energy commission, or defeat an incumbent from her own party as well as a two term former governor of the opposing party to serve as the youngest governor of a state. Just like the Daily Kos said. We just needed someone brilliant like you to show us the genius of the leftist political thought process. We see it now. We realize that you reached the exact same conclusion as the equally-brilliant folks in the above linked video through careful indpendpent research and deep, painstaking intellectual exercise. This matter is now closed. You have won. We are powerless to refute you.
Patrick,
Did you at least enjoy the story?
Lol. It's a fine story :)
Thanks for reading it.
All the best to you, Patrick.
DrWilson,
In post #25, you said "… in a poll of historians regarding the GWB Presidency. After all it is the historians who will eventually give GWB his place in history. ¶ Doesn't look too good, and this was written before the latest economic meltdown. As you will see, an unprecedented 98% said that the GWB Presidency had failed. In fact, even before his latest drop in the opinion poles [polls], he was rated worst President ever."
Let’s see. Historians are mostly academics; academics are overwhelmingly liberals known for revisionism and radicalism; liberal-academics overwhelmingly condemn a president their party loathes far too often on the flimsiest of evidence of doing things their historical heroes often did in spades. When Bush I and Reagan left office, academia did much the same thing. This is the same thing and same excuses for attacking Bush the media flaunts, and with as little validity. So, who cares!
A Closer Look
Before dismissing your source (orig: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html ) outright, let’s have a closer look at who they are, what they espouse, and, if accessible, their methodology. We have previously established polls and surveys are poor barometers of either opinion or fact because they are so easily manipulated to produce a particular result.
First, as to methodology, the article openly admits the poll was conducted “unscientific[ally]”; suggesting informally and, likely, unrepeatable. This can be as simple as sending out an email to your subscriber list requesting they rate a list of Bush Administration failures from 1 to 5 (which would not only be sloppy, but misleading). The actual survey consists of two questions; both of them highly subjective (see http://hnn.us/articles/47918.html ). Other than ‘school affiliation’, there is no criterion for who qualifies as a historian and eligible, therefore, to participate in the poll. The poll is a follow up to a similar one McElvaine conducted in 2004, and with the same partisan objective. It is not inconceivable McElvaine has conducted other polls; only publishing those providing the desired result (though that may be too harsh). In any case, canvassing a group known to be unsympathetic to Bush only tells us something of the group polled; not anything measurable regarding Bush, his real support, or history’s judgment of him.
I am hardly unique in critiquing the validity of this particular poll or of the HNS article. In “The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians”, Larry DeWitt (a liberal) writes:
“The felt-need to do something urgently, is really the desire to strike a political blow (for or against) the Bush Administration on the part of those answering this survey. If we are honest with ourselves here, we would admit that this poll is an expression of the desire on the part of many of those answering it to repudiate President Bush’s own self-serving judgment that future historians will vindicate his presidency. Those down-ranking Bush want to say to him: “No we won’t!” But this striking of blows—for or against—is not historical scholarship. It is politics parading under false colors. When historians undertake to rebut the President’s politically-motivated claims about history with their own politically-motivated counter-claims, they drag the repute of the history profession down to his same level.”
Two things jump out at me from this last statement (as they should you). First is, how likely are respondents to the survey to be those recognizing and empathizing with McElvaine’s hidden objective of striking a low blow; and, second, how probable is it objective historians are far less to participate. Assuming these are true, it skews the results strongly anti-Bush-ward and will be totally unrepresentative of all historians (i.e., those with both strong credentials and professional ethics).
Looking at HNS’ ‘About Us’ page, I find, out of its editorial staff and advisors, eight are strongly liberal, one is strongly conservative, two are arguably conservative, and the remaining 23 are unidentifiable as to ideology. Of the non-liberals, only the possibly-conservative Sauerwein holds a significant editorial post. Of the two ‘arguables’, one scorns both the article and any participation in the survey (regardless of bias) as unprofessional (i.e., inappropriate to the business of history), and Sauerwein is properly skeptical of polls altogether. Of the liberals, three clearly place partisanship ahead of intellectual integrity. The page declares “… our pages are open to people of all political persuasions. Left, right, center: all are welcome”, but how much of a guide is this as regards the survey when the editorial staff is dominated by liberals and the survey’s author is a regular and highly-partisan contributor of the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine ).
HNS background checks
Editors:
Rick Shenkman, Publisher & Editor in Chief (L) – http://www.juancole.com/2008/06/shenkman-why-american-people-were-so.html
Bonnie K. Goodman (?) – no info
Jonathan Dresner (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/1251.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/1361.html
Daniel Sauerwein (C?) – “Let's not forget that many polls have come out showing that a vast majority of academics hate Bush and are Democrats. So, it can therefore be argued that if another Republican were in office, the same results would occur.” Responding to ‘Historians v. George W. Bush’ by Robert S. McElvaine; ( http://conservativefiles.blogspot.com/ – not certain same guy)
John Maass (C) – http://hnn.us/comments/90569.html “It is interesting to me that Wilentz has made a big splash in the public sphere (RS Magazine) with a question on ranking Bush. It’s not really a question, as we can tell by the forum that Wilentz will argue "yes", and more importantly, that he should do so. But should we also judge Wilentz then too, as an historian? I'm 126 pages into his tome THE RISE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY and have found a number of factual mistakes. Does that mean he should be ranked at the bottom of the heap too? Is he another historian who can't get it right?” – John Maass ; http://fusilier.wordpress.com/john-maass-a-short-history/ – Maass bio
Al Magary (?) – no info
Howard Shorr (L) – http://www.angelfire.com/blues/writing/shorr.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/20461.html (multiculturalist/revisionist historian)
Lee P. Ruddin – (?)
Murray Polner (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/4483.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/5455.html ; http://www.lewrockwell.com/polner/polner-arch.html (Polner, in his many articles, slanders conservatives shamelessly; most frequent of his lies being the ‘neo-cons resurrecting the draft’ ploy)
Advisors:
Joyce Appleby (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/23297.html
Pauline Maier (?) – no information
Walter Nugent (L) – http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/38.1/nugent.html ; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/books/26gord.html?em&ex=1214712000&en=b730ad6e5de4e635&ei=5087
Gil Troy (leans-Bush-ward, but mixed – C?) – http://hnn.us/articles/9777.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/42619.html [“My role as an historian is to analyze, explain, assess, what occurred in the past. Unlike too many colleagues, I don't believe in using my professorial podium as a political platform. I want my students studying politics without being political. I love when a student says, "I'm confused, are you a Republican or a Democrat, a leftist or a rightist?" ¶ ... my book "Hillary Clinton: Polarizing First Lady" is coming out this fall. But no, I did not start with the premise that she "bothers" me. I intended to measure her historical footprint, not predict her future or pass judgment on her.”]
Liz Cohen (L) – http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10155.html
James Banner (?) –
Leonard Steinhorn (L) – http://hnn.us/articles/15583.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/20273.html ; http://hnn.us/articles/47817.html
Lewis Gold – (?)
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html – how historians rate Presidents
postscript to #32
I noted the other day, the media has tentatively begun the Bush rehabilitation (i.e., he was 'astonishingly gracious' toward Obama). The media did the same when they were done bashing Reagan, Bush I, and Ford (though not so much Nixon). The reason they do this once the object of hate has left office is simple. Lies pile up and get in the way of slandering the next conservative. You can't claim the current occupant "worst President of all time" with all those other "worst Presidents" standing in the way. It won't be long before academia adds its own stamp of 'fairness' to the chorus.