Extra, extra! Sarah Palin is exactly what you thought she was!
 

If there's ever a reason to read a long-form article, this is it.

Vanity Fair reporter spends time in Wasilla and on the road with Palin.

Seems to me, as soon as her presidential run starts in earnest and she has to do interviews again, she's finished.

One would hope that was true, but Bush Jr. (I call him junior) was elected TWICE (sorta) and he had to be one of the stupidest people alive. We who are fortunate to live in more progressive areas forget most of the country is filled with people who believe if one doesn't eat the flesh of the Christ-zombie and follow other variable rules, they will be consigned to the eternal hell created in the wisdom of an omnipotent (and loving) being. In the 80's
after Regan was elected to office I truly understood why human history is one despot and horrific event after another.
we are DEVO!

Call me crazy but I think Bush's campaign rhetoric was on a totally different plane than Palin's was.

I even think it's against the odds that Palin will win her party's nomination...but maybe I'm being TOO optimistic.

Wow....gotta love Reagan is evil rhetoric coupled with anti-religious rhetoric.

I, personally, am happy that I live in a so-called less-progressive area of the country, particularly if being more fortunate like you means I have to look down on others who think differently than I do.

If I was writing some screenplay or something about all this, I'd say that all this focus on Palin is a calculated ploy (by who? I don't know) to keep Obama in office for a second term. Give her a lot of rope just in time for her to hang herself in 2012.*

*And I don't mean that literally.

While I don't think Bush II was one of the stupidest people alive, he was one of the stupidest (and worst) presidents this country ever had.

I think Reagan was idealistic, out of touch, and just plain wrong policy-wise; but I do not consider him evil.

And if you think that being progressive means you look down on others, you are sadly mistaken and misinformed.

I was referring to Cynthia, who clearly (based on what she wrote) does look down on other people who don't think like she does.

Your view of Reagan matches my view of Obama pretty much word for word.

I'm not anti-religion, but I'm anti-anyone-who-thinks-the-solution-to-this-country's-woes-lie-in-a-more-religious-government.

That's the impression I've been under for some time - certainly most conservatives in my social or family circle have said that they wouldn't want Palin to run (much less a Palin/Beck ticket).

They shouldn't want her to run in the same way Democrats shouldn't have wanted Obama to run. They like what she's saying too much and our political system does not allow the individual to actually accomplish what they want to do to a sufficient degree to keep their biggest fans happy.

Haven't read the entire Vanity Fair article yet to form my own opinion but I'm seeing enough sources saying they've been misused and enough credible reports of factual errors and general exaggerations that I don't know how much of it I'm going to take at face value when I read the rest (got through about half).

I don't see what's so wrong about looking down on people who are selfish, greedy, stupid, bigoted, hateful, and seek to harm others and themselves through their words and actions.

The problem is that real conservatives haven't been in charge in the Republican Party for quite some time.

The Religious Right has FAR more control over the Republican Party than I can stand.

I do not believe my opinion of Regan was in my post (boils down to "you are kidding right?")
I don't believe in the exsistance of what you call evil, I believe in sad things that make evil seem real like: stupid, greedy, sheep-like. But I much prefer nice things like thinking for yourself.
Nor was my opinion of anyone other than the rabidly religious of a certain type (who BTW do not resemble the man called Jesus one bit). They were just a nasty version of ignorant that came to mind.

As for those who believe differently than I do, they are all the people who are not me. As in everyone is (and perhaps should act like they are) an individual person and not say, a sheep.

So, scaeagels now you know. Do try to comment on what I actually say, you can tell what that might be reading the words that are written.

Well, this may be a matter of interpretation, but I too thought that you were pretty clear on how you felt about Reagan:

This to me says that:

1. You think Reagan was a despot - I hate pulling out a dictionary definition of a word, but I will admit that I looked up 'despot' to make sure I was understanding the word correctly. Do you believe that Reagan ruled with "absolute power and authority" and that he "exercise[d] power tyrannically?" Personally, I don't. And to me, usage of a term like "despot" certainly has a far less than flattering connotation.
2. You think that the election/term of office of Reagan was a "horrific event" - If you believe this to be true, I have to say that I vehemently disagree with you. I will afford differing viewpoints and do not discredit others for what they believe, but have to passionately disagree with this type of assessment of Reagan's term as President. I think he did a lot of great things for not only this country, but for the world at large. There were mistakes during his term, but there is with just about any modern President (and probably for all presidents). I like to remind supporters of Bill Clinton that the man was impeached for lying under oath while President. None-the-less, while I disagree with many of his policies, I thought he was a pretty effective leader. Sure, I could start ripping apart things that he did in office, but overall, I thought he did a decent job.

If you were not calling Reagan a "despot" and saying that his term was a "horrific event," then I apologize. But that is how your post read to me, and I think that is what scaeagles was commenting on as well.

Thanks, Kevy. You said that far better than I ever could.

While I won't go into the details you did, I interpretted there comments -

Sounds to me like generic conservative Christian bashing. It sounds as if you are saying that people who live amongst them are unfortunate, which would certainly serve to say that you believe they are lower class than you.

I can see that. "Christ zombie" is quite harsh.

Although, I will say that communion is ritualistic cannibalism to me. It honestly creeps me out. I don't see why it's necessary to become bonded with the spirit of Christ. But, then again, I'm Pagan, so I understand the use of ritual tools to help visualize our prayers.

However, if someone made cookies in the shape of Sarah Palin, I'd line up to bite the head off of one. ;)

Hmmmm... Where can I find a Sarah shaped cookie cutter.....

Any chance that I might imbibe the spirit of that woman would keep me away from any food resembling her. :p

I read Cynthia's post not as "Regan was evil" simply, "The fact that Regan got elected highlighted a mentality in the populace that makes despotism and horrific events possible."

Much like, had McCain been elected, while I wouldn't have thought McCain a horrible human being (I mostly consider him a dupe and fool at this point, but not evil), I would certainly have been pretty displeased with the state of the populace.

That said, it's perhaps a bit of hyperbole for Cynthia to state that her statement doesn't carry SOME indication of her opinion of Regan - however it does not equate to "Regan is evil."

I'd say that is a pretty generous interpretation of "Reagan's election was symbolic of humanity's history of despotism and horrific behavior."

The difference between "Reagan is evil" and "Reagan was the figurehead of evil" (using "evil" as a replacement for "despotic and horrific") isn't really all that significant, at least to me.

But really, I stopped reading after George Bush was one of the stupidest people alive (kind of takes me back to what I was saying the other day about conservative elitism positioning the opposition as immoral while liberal elitism positions it as stupidity) so I wouldn't have noticed the rest much if others hadn't started talking about it.

BTW: Our 40th President's last name is spelt Reagan

Well, Donald Regan wasn't evil.

But this Regan was:

These boards were born out of elitism - can't find any fault in that.

I read it more as "the sentiment of the electorate belied the potential for evil in humanity." I don't see that as the same as, "The person they voted for was evil." YMMV

Hmm...If I said that hiring you was a demonstration belies your employers tendency to stupidity and incompetence would that be meaningfully different from calling you stupid and incompetent?

"No, no, I'm not calling you stupid and incompetent I'm just saying that hiring you shows their stupidity and incompetence."

I have a pretty poor impression of Ronald Reagan. Did then, do now. His philosophy of looting the country for the sake of the rich has led us to where we are now, and has ruined America - for perhaps a very, very long time - if not actually sewn the seeds of our Empire's doom.

His actions, or rather inactions, on the AIDS crisis make him nothing short of a cold-blooded murderer in my book.

I won't even get started on Iran-Contra or his warmongering. But let me leave off that he was a doddering old man who creeped me out, and it amazed me that so many people found him a charming grandfatherly figure. He was pretty much evil in my book. Proto-Palpatine.

I must apologize....I fear I have derailed this thread and certainly did not intend to. I just had to raise objections to what Cynthia had posted. We have hashed out differences of opinion on Reagan before, and this thread was intended to be about Palin.

Like I said, I found her defense that it said nothing of her opinion of Reagan disingenuous. I just disagree that it equates to "Reagan is evil".

There's a huge gulf between my opinion of an electorate that would have voted McCain into office and my opinion of McCain himself (well, at the time at least. He's doing his best to close that gap). I would have found his election evidence that there was major momentum in this country towards an endpoint that I find completely distasteful - however I did not find McCain himself completely distasteful.

A candidate can't be held responsible for everything their supporters stand for.

We'll just disagree on the seriousness of what that sentence suggested about Reagan. Like I said, I found the post so over the top that I stopped reading after a couple sentences anyway.

Can we all just agree that Palin has some seriously horrible issues, AND that it indicates some serious horrible issues in those that love her so dearly? I think the conservatives here aren't going to be in her camp.

I agree she has political issues. If "issues" includes "personal issues" then I probably don't necessarily agree.

I'm not a huge Palin fan, but I understand her appeal. There have been....well, really no loud vocal champions of conservatives that get out and run for office. She is the anti-McCain. Do I think she represents everything an intelligent conservative does? No, What she primarily does is rally up a conservative portion of the republican party that is tired of republican officals losing their fiscal conservatism, and tired of the absolute immense size of govenment. I get that. I'm with her on that. But I don't regard her as a serious candidate for office.

Of course, many of the currently elected government I don't regard as a serious candidate for office.

If the government was smaller than it is, Palin would really not have any appeal. But it is huge, getting bigger, and it got bigger not only under Obama, but under Bush as well. She capitalizes on the sentiment of people who are tired of that.

On the other hand, I'd vote for Tina Fey in a heartbeat.

If Palin running means more Tina Fey on SNL portraying her, then I'm all for it. With the caveat that Palin loses, of course.
:D

SCA, it certainly isn't the support of small government policy that makes Palin and others repellant to me - for all I know, some version of fiscal conservatism might make sense and turn things around. (I'm too ignorant on economics to argue persuasively on behalf of a bigger fed) It's the "guns and Bible" anti-intellectualism that makes it impossible for me to take these people seriously. (And in Palin's case, well, she really does seem like kind of a horrible person.) I don't see much logical correlation between smaller government and all the God talk. (Unless it would be harder for a small government to quash a theocracy - I sure hope that's not what's bubbling under the surface of all the rallying.)

Under the surface? “America today begins to turn back to God.”

I don't think there's any grand conspiracy of that type any more than that there's a grand conspiracy of Obama wanting an Islamic theocracy (and while I do not beleive it, I could list the quotes to support the theory).

The guns talk I understand completely. We have discussed the second amendment here before and i realize that there is a wide variance of opinions on it.

The God talk....I can't say that it makes me uncomforrtable, but I don't understnad why it is such a huge part of the movement. There is really no threat by most of what is viewed by these as immoral, and I wish we could have a live and let live society. I don't really claim to have a handle on the religious aspect of what is going on with Palin and the crowds that gather.

And what's your handle on wanting a smaller government when 22 million Americans are out of work?

Well....I'm not sure how having a bigger government helps in that.

Business reports I have read are saying that businesses have cash on hand and the capability to hire, but they are afraid because of new mandates - include Obamacare - that raise the overall cost of employment. The private sector is being overly cautious because they are afraid of growing government and higher taxes.

If you are referring to benefits for the unemployed....those have already been extended to a more than generous 99 weeks.

Oh bullsh!t. How about the business sector is being over cautious because no one can afford to pay for goods and services?

Businesses are there to make money. They are not afraid to hire because they don't know exactly how much money they'll make; they're afraid to hire because there's no money to hire people when no one's buying your goods or services.


Tell ya what, why don't you look at how the U.S. got out of this situation the last time this percentage of the population was unemployed ... and whether it was the private sector or the federal government that turned that around?

We already went to war, it hasn't helped. Unless it has to specifically be a war against Germany and Japan. I'd be in favor but it doesn't seem to be on the roadmap at the moment.

And if the New Deal is going to get credit for ending the Depression rather than just preventing it from deepening even further then we've got another five or six years before we can really start questioning whether the actions taken so far were adequate.

Well, lets look at just that - presuming you are referring to the depression....

My favorite economist, among others I could link to but won't bother, dispute the commonly held view on government spending and the effects on great depression. A quote from the first paragraph of the link above, being itself a quote from FDR's treasury secretary -

We can debate the point ad infinitum, and I'm certain we could all link to economists supporting out particular point of view. My point is simply that it is certainly not uniform agreement.

As far as cash on hand....I attempted to find links to what I alluded to in the above, and in the 2 minutes I spent could not, so I will withdraw that for now.

The effects of the Obama stimulus packages have done.....nothing. Perhaps even made it worse. When he was pushing hard to get it passed, though he and his administration have now admitted (they kind of had to) that their predictions were wrong, he said if it was passed unemployment would peak at below 8% (a projection, certainly - it was not a promise). He was off by a factor of 25%. He gets away with saying that it would have been worse, but that's certainly not provable.

So, no....I do not believe bigger government is the answer to coming out of economic difficulties. In fact, I believe it has made it worse.

For the record, in neither case (Great Depression or the latest crisis) did the government spend anywhere close to the amount of money that the economic theory of government stimulus truly calls for to solve the problem (though most calculations estimate that WWII made up that gap almost exactly), so that particular theory has never really been tested.

I grok Cynthia's various statements. Reagan's election affirmed to her that people are sheep; horrific events can happen because sheeple don't often have the foresight that could prevent the things from happening (or go along with them when they do.)

They're out there (I'm leaving for a weekend in Santa Barbara in five minutes so I don't have time to track them down) but you can find other research as well that shows that such large scale uncertainty really doesn't seem to have much impact on business decisions.

I don't necessarily believe that bigger government is the answer to all economic issues, however, small government is not politically viable when people are out of work. It is not politically acceptable for either party to just say "Well, there was a bubble and the economy was about 10% bigger than it was so we'll just have to sit back while it deflates but to where it should have been and then it'll start growing organically then. Yes, it sucks that unemployment will be 10-13% during that period but it really is the best way to let the economy get back on track for consistent long term growth."

And there are many economists who would disagree with yours.

Right...which is why right after the link I wrote: