Irked by the reality TV star and former half-term governor of Alaska’s ridiculous self-comparison to Ronald Reagan, and culture-war dismissal of the Bush family, Scarborough keeps calm, carries on, busts out the scathing sarcasm, and strikes back:
What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run? It makes the political biography of Barack Obama look more like Winston Churchill’s, despite the fact that the 44th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified state senator. …
If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it’s cheaper than therapy.
But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio wants to return to the White House anytime soon, it’s time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin.
Also, regarding Palin’s “blue bloods” comment, Scarborough writes: “Perhaps her anger [at the Bushes] was understandable. After all, these disconnected ‘blue bloods’ had nothing in their backgrounds that could ever make them understand ‘real America’ like a former governor from Alaska who quit in the middle of her first term and then got rich.” LOL. Ouch.
I eagerly await the denunciation of “Lamestream Scarborough” by Dan Riehl and other such blind fools.
Really?
So what great accomplishment has Scarborough done?
What, besides his contract with MSNBC, makes him a sage?
Oh, that’s right, his attacks on Gov. Palin.
Name me one other position that confirms Scarborough’s new found wisdom?
“Really?”
Yes.
“So what great accomplishment has Scarborough done?”
Why does it matter? How is that relevant to anything? Should we start asking for your great accomplishments whenever you opine on something?
“What, besides his contract with MSNBC, makes him a sage?”
Anyone can make a coherent point. This might be difficult for you to understand, but sometimes people can agree with each other and transcend partisan lines or, and this is really bizarre, sometimes people who share a lot of political views can disagree on a particular subject.
“Name me one other position that confirms Scarborough’s new found wisdom?”
Name you a position? What does that even mean?
Thanks for your illuminating, substantive comment, gahrie. If you like, you can try addressing what Scarborough said with a thorough rebuttal and defend Palin, but I can see why that would be difficult for anyone to do.
Huh?
Do I have to be a lifelong fan of somebody to agree with something they say?
I don’t follow Scarborough closely enough to have a strong opinion of his level of “wisdom.” He seems generally pretty reasonable and even-keeled from what I see on Twitter, but those are just snapshots. I don’t really know. And I don’t understand why it matters. I’m not saying Joe Scarborough is God. I’m just quoting him because he happens to be right about this. If Rush Limbaugh said the same thing, I’d still agree with it. Hell, I agreed when Karl Rove said it, so there you go.
If it’s the last sentence you’re reacting to — “I eagerly await the denunciation of ‘Lamestream Scarborough’ by Dan Riehl and other such blind fools” — I’m not saying it automatically makes one a “blind fool” to attack Scarborough on any basis whatsoever. I’m saying it makes one a “blind fool” to fail to acknowledge the truth of the particular thing he’s saying in this particular instance… and, more broadly, to attack any and all dissenters like Scarborough as RINOs for saying such things, which Riehl has made a habit of recently.
Also, what kcatnd said.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one confused by the non-sequitur nature of gahrie’s comment.
1) Again, I will not defend Palin. She doesn’t need me to, and I am not a supporter of hers. I’ve made it very clear that at this point I am endorsing a Jindaj/Christie ticket in 2012.
2) These constant attacks on Palin by the Republican “establishment” do nothing but hurt the Republican party. My position isn’t that these Republicans are RINOs, it is that they are members of the political “elite”, a position that transcends their party alliegiance, and only infuriates Palin supporters and Tea Party members more. Remember, Palin didn’t come out and “attack” the Bushes until she was attacked first.
Ridiculous self-comparison to Ronald Reagan? If you’re talking about the recent statement that got Doug Mataconis all aflutter, and I think you are, it was actually John McCain who made the “comparison” to Reagan, such as it was, and then only to say that both Palin and Reagan were divisive figures. In fact, Candy Crowley then pressed McCain on that point:
So it wasn’t a self-comparison at all, and moreover, I think McCain is exactly right — Reagan was a divisive figure as well.
Further, claiming that Palin’s bio makes Obama somehow look Churchillian screams out for explanation, which Scarborough doesn’t bother to provide other than making one-sided cheap shots. That said, I think he may be on to something by intimating that Palin is more properly compared to Obama, not Ronald Reagan.
Palin didn’t come out and “attack” the Bushes until she was attacked first.
A question was asked about whether she is qualified to be president. A response was given. The response was negative. This constitutes an “attack” that justifies whatever insult Palin might hurl in response? And this is proof that the Republican “establishment” is hurting itself by attacking Palin? That’s circular logic. You’re essentially saying the “establishment” should cower in terror of Palin because, if they say anything negative (or even insufficiently positive) about her, it’s an “attack,” and she’ll “attack” back. Imagine if you heard me saying the same thing about, say, Al Sharpton. The Democratic “establishment” shouldn’t say anything negative about him, because if they do, it’s an “attack,” and he’ll attack back, and that will weaken them! Huh? But what if he’s a bozo who deserves the criticism? So everyone should just shut up and let the loudest, most strident voices control the debate?
Palin, like any politician, should be criticized if she deserves criticism. You refuse to “defend” her, so you’re not addressing whether she deserves criticism. Ergo, your comments on this topic are meaningless and pointless.
P.S. I realize it’s standard form to use the last office title held as an honorific, but “Gov. Palin” seems a stretch under the circumstances. I think “reality TV star Palin” or “ex-half-term-governor Palin” are much more accurate. 🙂
Don’t throw me in the briar patch Br’er Fox!
P.P.S. Just for the record, everything kcatnd and I said stands completely unrebutted, with the exception of my final paragraph.
Every attack the liberal and political elites make on Palin simply make her stronger.
Yes, I know that’s what you think. Now respond to what I said in response to it.
(Okay, you obviously don’t have to respond if you don’t want to. But sometimes I think you think you’ve responded when you haven’t.)
To Joe Mama: you’re incorrect. We’re not talking about what McCain said. We’re talking about what Palin said. Read the linked Scarborough piece. Also Noonan, in an article referenced by Scarborough.
I’m inclined to defend Sarah Palin nine times out of ten. She rarely deserves the criticism she gets, as most of the attacks on her are usually baseless, misinformed, or outright lies. That being said, it almost doesn’t matter at this point, as she is such a divisive figure that she is more of a liability than a candidate who can realistically win. The comparison to Reagan is unhelpful; the better parallels are HRC and Newt in the late ’90s.
Brendan: I haven’t read the Noonan article you linked to but I read the Scarborough piece and all he says is that he’s “offended by Palin’s attempt to build herself up by tearing down great men like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.” Perhaps Noonan sheds some light on what Scarborough is talking about, but his piece is about as clear as mud on this point.
By the way, neither the Scarborough piece nor the Noonan piece are helpful in their description of the Hannity-Palin exchange — I’d have to hear the sound byte. But attacking Palin for her defensive observation that Reagan was an actor is rather weak. At Palin’s age, Reagan was still shilling for GE and had not yet even touched the political sphere, so poopooing Palin’s resume in comparison is rather lame.
I also completely defend her on the blue-blood comment. Sure, HW was an accomplished military man in his own right, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was born with some very significant advantages (this is also true of John McCain). The fact that some blue-bloods actually take advantage of their luck by proving their mettle and skill, vs. just continually coasting up the ladder and inheriting success, doesn’t erode the justification behind the resentment that, if it were up to most of these same blue-bloods (McCain being a glaring exception), you would have to be a blue-blood to even be allowed at the big-boy table.
P.S. Brendan, I logically assumed that you were referring to the McCain interview because you linked to the tweet from Mataconis on this very point.
AML, I’m confused as to what criticisms of Palin are unwarranted. The GOP has a track record of electing / nominating people for president that are either unqualified or pathologically insane or both going back to Nixon. I fail to see how endeavoring to keep the least qualified, least well informed, most pathologically insane of the lot from managing to work her way into the Oval Office is anything other than fully warranted.
Make no mistake, at the risk of being hyperbolic, our democracy is on the line with every election. And with every election our nation seems to be moving more authoritarian more strident, and less free (or liberal with a small “l” but I’m guessing our buddy gahrie might get confused by that usage). This is a serious and concerning issue. Honestly it’s enough to make me want to vote for Ron Paul. Who seems to be the only person that gives a damn about what the Constitution actually calls for anymore. I know the dude is nutso off the deep end. But at least he supports civil liberties, all of them. Which it seems is more than can be said for anyone else.
dcl:
I’m not a big fan of the first President Bush, however:
1) He was one of the best “qualified” presidents we have ever had.
2) He was very well educated, in fact one of Brendan’s treasured elites.
3) I have no idea how you would characterize him as pathologically insane. (unless of course you are referring to his decision to raise taxes, which I assume as a good lefty you approve of)
Yeah, I have to say Bush the first was well qualified and not insane.
Which is the first rational thing you’ve said in this thread gahrie, build on that.
gahrie, comments like dcl @ #18 are precisely the kind of remarks not worth even acknowledging, let alone refuting. If you even accept those two paragraphs as worthy of debate and response, you’ve already lost.
gahrie, on HW Bush I agree with you. on W Bush no. I believe I there was an implied qualification of most with saying track record. Out of Nixon, Ford, The Ronald, HW Bush and W. Bush. H.W. was the best of the lot.
AML, Nixon was a criminal, and pathologically paranoid. Ford, almost completely forgotten, he was completely un-elected, and beyond pardoning Nixon and back handedly pardoning draft dodgers I don’t really recall much about what he did, so I probably shouldn’t make a comment to his presidency. Ronald, who was fairly clearly already suffering from dementia while still in the White House was a puppet of Nancy, who seems to have really just wanted to play the part of First Lady. And W. Bush was quite possibly the worst president this country has ever had.
Now, I’m sorry but that really isn’t the best track record for your party. I know you like Ronald. He was all warm and cuddly but he was also basically incompetent.
Palin is the most ill informed, lazy, pandering, potential candidate ever from the Republican Party. She make W Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar. She doesn’t know the F***ing difference between North and South Korea. This isn’t a slip, this is chronically willfully pathologically uniformed person. And this happens repeatedly. She has the intellectual curiosity of a dung beetle.
Sorry, AML, criticism of Plain is totally completely warranted. Seriously, electing her would be more bat shit crazy than electing Sharpton. And that would be pretty F***ing bat shit crazy.
As for the second paragraph, I was attacking Obama, so I’m not sure why you have a problem with that.
At Palin’s age, Reagan was still shilling for GE
At Palin’s age, Reagan hadn’t already been nominated on a national ticket to be placed an old man’s heartbeat away from the presidency, and he wasn’t publicly contemplating a presidential run in two years. This is precisely Noonan’s point! Palin is putting the cart waaaaaaay before the horse. She’s comparing herself to Reagan, the finished product, rather than the Reagan, the early work-in-progress. She hasn’t remotely earned that comparison yet.
At Palin’s age, Reagan hadn’t already been nominated on a national ticket to be placed an old man’s heartbeat away from the presidency, and he wasn’t publicly contemplating a presidential run in two years.
Again, the apropos comparison here is Barack Obama, not Ronald Reagan. Whatever indictment this lack of experience is for Gov. Palin, is even more profound in regards to Obama, who was running for president — not the heartbeat backup!
And no, she is not comparing herself to Reagan. She was attacked for being a TV personality, and her (quite valid) response was, Wasn’t Reagan an actor? IOW, neither of them should be judged on the TV / acting aspect. That’s a completely fair point to make.
Wait, you mean Palin was comparing her TV profile to Reagan’s acting career, and not claiming that she was the exactly same as him in every meaningful way, shape and form?!?! I still haven’t seen or heard Palin’s statements firsthand (nor do I plan to dig for them), but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that is the case and her “ridiculous self-comparison to Ronald Reagan” is nothing of the sort. What is it about this woman that gets her detractors all wee-weed up?
Pingback: World Spinner
I wonder the same thing, Joe Mama. To me, Sarah Palin is just another GOP hopeful, with her supporters and her detractors. I don’t take her any more seriously than I once did with, say, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Lamar Alexander, or Steve Forbes. Or Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani. But somehow she excites this irrational hatred amongst much of the Left as well as the Old Guard Right.
Joe Mama and AMLTrojan – I have to suspect that Palin keeps demonstrating those qualities that the Elite Left (and someof the Old Guard Right) would be too embarrassed to admit to having, never mind admiring … can you picture *any* (one of the few times I will use the word) of the current crop of Democrat congresscritters of either House field-dressing a moose ? Or successfully and correctly catching a halibut ?
Palin starts off by offending the “feminists” because she is both successful *and* conservative – while remaining proud to be a woman rather than trying to out-man the men around her … how *dare* she do that ?
She adds to the offence by not kowtowing to the political elites – and she went as far as to fight some of them from her own party …
She doesn’t fawn over the MSM folk … she speaks her mind unapologetically … if one actually listens to an entire speech she makes, she usually makes good sense overall, correcting her own misstatements in very short time … Mr “57 states”, not so much … how *dare* she keep proving that she would have been a better actual President than the current First Occupant ?
You two have noticed, as have I, that the MSM (and the davidkians in here) trumpet comparisons of her with Reagan – while valiantly striving to avoid making any comparisons with the current First Occupant …
I wonder why ?
(/sarc)
Actually, I don’t wonder why … if I had supported Obama, *I* would be doing my level best not to examine WTF had been going through my mind when I did such a 20/20 hindsight bonehead manoeuvre … and I would probably be frantically looking for *anything* to *not* have to discuss Obama-support …
You know, Alasdair, I have always been bemused by the Brit / Franco spelling of “manoeuvre” vs. maneuver. Something about that o right in the middle, followed shortly by vre.
One of these millennia, I’ll be sufficiently motivated to look up the correct special code for the diphthong “o” “e” to use it there … (grin)
(Yes, David, I did type “thong” …)
Hmmm … manœuvre … now, I just have to remember Alt+0156 …
From the US pronunciation, should it not be manoover ?
(innocent grin)
At least we know the proper order to write -er in at the end of a word………
And how the hell do you spell al-you-mini-um?
( I lived in East Anglia for half my life before going away to USC…)
Such spelling is elementary … aluminium … we Brits think of “aluminum” as the element aluminium with impurities mixed in or as an alloy … (grin) …
Us Brits spell it “manœuvre” cuz that’s how the folk from whom we “acquired” the word spell it …
In the US, cuz of Ellis Island and the like, the Cholmondley family name became Chumly … (grin) … cuz US immigration officials *knew* better how to spell the name they heard …
I like Sarah 🙂
I think it is funny how much she bugs people.
Pingback: RealTime - Questions: "Which girl in your opinion has better looks ? 10 points?"
Al @ 28. There is some doubt about her actually field dressing a moose. I’ve not heard anything about a halibut. Regardless, hunting from a chopper isn’t very sporting.
Be that as it may, the entire “I’m a hunter” thing. While it comes off as pandering, is pretty irrelevant to my estimation of Palin.
So far she seems to be as pathologically paranoid as Nixon without any of the up side. That is rather concerning.
So far she seems to be as pathologically paranoid as Nixon without any of the up side. That is rather concerning.
If anyone in history has the right to think that people are out to get her without being labeled as “pathologically paranoid” it is Gov. Palin.
dcl #36 – you appear to be using the DSM definition of “pathologically paranoid” for Governor Palin …
Not the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, of course – you seem to prefer the Democrat Sycophant Media version …
Ya know – for someone who has such a strongly-held animus against Palin, you actually don’t seem to know that much about *her* – though you are fluent in Palin Derangement Syndrome … are you sure it’s not Tina Fey that you dislike so strongly, in reality ? (You do seem easily confused, after all)
So that would be the, “just because your paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you” line of reasoning?
I am amused by the ability of both gahrie and Al to categorically dismiss anything that does not correspond to their preconceived world view as biased. It does conveniently keep you from having to think. A task for which they both do seem ill suited. At least AML and Joe are mostly rational.
no..it would be a “just because people are out to get you, it doesn’t mean you are paranoid” line of reasoning.
And dcl making judgements on someone else’s ability to think and reason is just absurdity.
Let’s just be happy that PDS hasn’t come to this (yet).
Who knew GWAR was still around…
Headline of the day:
Scarborough Attacks Palin, Agrees To Help Launch Centrist Civility Group