Bristol, Levi, and Sarah: Jerry Springer/Jersey Shore Redux
One thing you have to give the Palins is that they are most definitely the epitome of average, gossipy, po-dunk, cheeseball, slapstick, classless and clueless, and a bit on the trashy Jerry Springer/Jersey Shore side of "middle" America. I guess that's fine for what it is; but would you want such incurious mediocrity to be the leader of the free world? I shudder to think...
The latest in the Palin soap-opera, trash-class melodrama is the tabloidesque secret engagement of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.
Not only has Sarah Palin apparently been kept out of the loop in this surreal roller-coaster of tabloid fare, but it appears that Bristol is actually afraid of how her mother will react to the news of the engagement made with such a splashy exclusive tabloid interview.
Can you just imagine what seedy tabloid scandals would infest a Sarah Palin White House? I can just imagine a reality TV show setting up shop in the Executive Residence section of the august halls of the White House.
I really can't understand how the joke that is Sarah Palin, and the craziness that is her family, can command such appeal to anyone with any modicum of a brain. I guess it would be different if she actually had any original ideas or policy positions; but she has nothing beyond silly, meaningless slogans like "Mama Grizzlies" and "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "Deport All Illegals." She's not even principled enough to be consistent with her Tea Party fan club.
I guess some would call me an intellectual elitist for simply pointing out the obvious. But, elitist or not, the facts are the facts. And the fact is this: Sarah Palin is a mentally vacuous, intellectually incurious person with a pretty face and a cheesy soap opera "Jersey Shore" family situation. I can't fathom that kind of representation of America in the White House. And I have to trust that most conservatives who value intelligence, integrity, and dignity in a leader will also chafe at the prospect of a Palin Presidency. I am absolutely convinced that it would be an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions at every level. And I apologize to any conservatives out there who think I'm going over the top here; but I can't help it. I have to say what I see and think on this; and I honestly am completely and utterly dumbfounded when I think about the appeal and popularity of Sarah Palin as a prospective political leader.
Posts
7 comments:
I think this fiasco, in addition to backlash from a few poorly vetted endorsements (she backed a gubanatorial candidate in Georgia who had voted in a county committee to give $400K of taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood, that will hurt her), will finally sink the realistic hopes of Palin as a Presidential contender. There will be some people who still clamor for her, and she might even run (I don't think she will though), but I believe a lot of support will now start to fade. She'll still be a behind the scenes player, and I'm fine with that (as a talking head I like her better than Limbaugh, Coulter, or Beck, and as a behind-the-scenes power broker she does a better job than Michael Steele or any of the old-school GOP establishment).
The problem is the GOP still doesn't have a good POTUS candidate for 2012. I'm not a big fan of Palin, but even with the publicity baggage would take her over Obama, Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee. Pawlenty and Jindal both have potential but I fear they are a little too milquetoast for a base poised to wage politcal war on liberalism. The GOP is going to make big gains in 2010, and for a 2012 victory to be effective (from a consevative point of view) they need a POTUS candidate who can not only win big vs. Obama, but can carry a lot of House and Senate seats with them. So far that person has not emerged, and that's a bigger worry to me than anything Sarah Palin and her family does.
And for the record, your screed against Palin would score a lot more points with me if I had ever heard you say a derrogatory word about the Jerry Springer sideshows that are the lives of the Clintons, the Gores, or John Edwards. Should the po-dunk, cheeseball, classless and embarrassing reality that is Bill Clinton's sex life prevent Hillary from serving as Secretary Of State? Should Algore's family funhouse of drug abuse, divorce, and now a real honest-to-goodness sex scandal cause him to lose his leadership status among the Climate Change legislation crowd?
When John 'sex tape sugar daddy' Edwards inevitably comes sniffing around the Democratic Party again looking for a place in it, I'll expect to see many posts from you about why that is completely unacceptable.
What I see from a lot of liberals is, every once in a blue moon when the mainstream press reports on the scandalous lives of Democratic leaders, a reaction that says, "I can't believe our news media is stooping so low as to report on this tabloid trash. They should raise above it." But when they report the same type stuff about conservatives the mood is is more, "Trailer trash! Look at the plebians! Their reaction is so funny when you tap on the glass like that!"
I'd like for *all* of our national leaders to be capable of raising decent families that are free of the worst kinds of debasing human drama, but I suspect the passion that drives one to desire to be in bigtime politics probably precludes that to a large (but not insurmountable) degree.
And for the record, your screed against Palin would score a lot more points with me if I had ever heard you say a derrogatory word about the Jerry Springer sideshows that are the lives of the Clintons, the Gores, or John Edwards. Should the po-dunk, cheeseball, classless and embarrassing reality that is Bill Clinton's sex life prevent Hillary from serving as Secretary Of State? Should Algore's family funhouse of drug abuse, divorce, and now a real honest-to-goodness sex scandal cause him to lose his leadership status among the Climate Change legislation crowd?
When John 'sex tape sugar daddy' Edwards inevitably comes sniffing around the Democratic Party again looking for a place in it, I'll expect to see many posts from you about why that is completely unacceptable.
For the record, you're right. It's a fair criticism. The left is all too quiet in calling out these sleazy sideshows among their own for what they are, too. And also for the record, I have called out these bozos for their shenanigans when they have surfaced. Probably not as much as I should have, and certainly not as much as I call out Palin in this way, but I have done so.
I don't admire these folks' moral failings at all. That said, let me try to explain what I see the difference is here.
First, Bill Clinton is a sex-addicted sleazeball when it comes to his personal life. I think it's partly why Hillary isn't President and why many people, like me, preferred Obama to the Clintons. And then, again, Bill's failings are his and not Hillary's. My issue with Sarah Palin is that she is just as much engaging in the Jersey Shore dynamic of her family situation as Bristol, Levi, and any other player.
Second, the people you have mentioned have all taken serious hits to their credibility -- not only in their personal morality, but also in terms of their political careers -- for the po-dunk, power-hungry, cheeseball, classless and clueless behaviors they have engaged in. Edwards is toast politically. Gore's troubles with his marriage have damaged his standing within the liberal fold (though it's not nearly as problematic as Edwards' and Clinton's transgressions). And I find Bill Clinton's sexcapades to be disgusting. They've certainly tarnished his reputation with me, and, arguably, his standing in the Democratic Party (since even he couldn't get Hillary the nomination).
The difference between all of these folks and Sarah Palin is that Palin's standing within the conservative movement and the Republican party, unlike with the left's transgressors, seems to rise the more her life and her behavior mimics Jersey Shore. That is what I can't understand. We not only know of Palin's deficiencies in her intellect and her knowledge of issues, but we also know all of this seedy stuff about Palin and her family; and yet she is increasingly considered to be the front runner for the GOP nomination over someone like Mitt Romney who has vastly more experience than she, more command over the issues, and whose family and personal life is an exemplary role model for every one of us. So, yes, you're right about we lefties not calling out more forcefully those among our side who were once respected leaders but who have proven themselves to be poor personal role models with destructive behaviors; but please explain to me in a serious proactive argument on the merits of her qualifications and character (and not in a defensive argument about how Palin gets sympathy because she's viewed as unfairly victimized by whoever points out the realities surrounding her) why Palin has more cachet among the base even after we know and see this incredible and unbelievable stuff going on around her with her family and with, presumably, her own complicity in such shenanigans.
"I find Bill Clinton's sexcapades to be disgusting. They've certainly tarnished his reputation with me, and, arguably, his standing in the Democratic Party..."
Yes, his reputation is so tarnished that President Obama invited him over today to seek advice on job creation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/bill-clinton-back-in-the-white.html
As for Palin, the sole reason she is a more likely POTUS contender in the GOP than Romney is because Romney created the very idea of Obamacare, actually campaigned on it in the 2008 primaries (just before Hillary co-opted it from him and Obama co-opted it from Hillary). Whatever other intellectual or political transgressions you want to ascribe to Palin, I promise they pale in comparison to being the jackass who birthed the very idea that led to the most hated (by conservatives) political shenanigan since FDR stuffed the SC to get Social Security past Constitutional muster.
I said Bill Clinton's reputation is tarnished with me. And it is. The fact that he is invited to the White House by Obama to discuss job creations is because Clinton is at least perceived to be somewhat intelligent and knowledgable about certain things, in spite of his personal transgressions. Kinda like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are among conservatives, both of whom have personal moral failures that are arguably as troublesome and repulsive as Clinton's. And yet, because they are both perceived as shrewd and knowledgable on the issues, they have privileged places of respect within the conservative movement in spite of their moral failures. The ball bounces both ways, and it is very rare to see any conservatives criticize either Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich in the ways you would like to see Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or Al Gore more criticized among the left. And if we're gonna go there, I'd like to see conservatives be a lot more honest about criticizing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their adoption of torture as policy, which is something I consider to be even more heinous morally than sexcapades. In the end, though, Sarah Palin, in my mind, doesn't even have that which makes Clinton or Gingrich still relevant, in spite of their Jersey Shore personal transgresssions. And yet she still is elevated as the GOP's best and most revered prospect for 2012. I don't think even a revelation that she had a fling with Levi Johnston would impact her standing in this regard. And that's what gets me about her appeal to conservatives: the salaciousness of her family life, not to mention her fickle and questionable knowledge of serious policy matters, doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans.
"The fact that he is invited to the White House by Obama to discuss job creations is because Clinton is at least perceived to be somewhat intelligent and knowledgable about certain things, in spite of his personal transgressions."
So then of course you wouldn't object to Obama calling Sarah Palin up to the White House to discuss energy policy and ways to dislodge the politically entrenched oil interests from the upper reaches of federal power, which she had a lot of success with at the state level in Alaska (using many methods I firmly disagree with, but would be right up Obama's alley)?
"And if we're gonna go there, I'd like to see conservatives be a lot more honest about criticizing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their adoption of torture as policy."
To the degree that most conservatives support waterboarding terrorists, I don't think their critisism would reflect honesty. Indeed, within the last year 58% of American voters polled by Rasmussen supported using "waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques" on the Underwear Bomber to attempt to gain information from him (only 30% polled opposed it). So, as compared to other moral transgressions, I think the waterboarding thing is a lot more contentious than Clinton's philandering or Limbaugh's drug abuse.
I should also say, Huck, while we're discussing it, that I toss out the liberal support for Clinton as an example of a double standard, but it is not necessarily the standard I take issue with so much as the uneven application of it. While I have more trust in a person who is ethically and morally consistant across all aspects of their life, I would vote for a philandering husband, or a reformed drug addict, or a notorious drinker, under the right circumstances because I don't expect politicians to be morally flawless. A cheating husband who *votes* consistant with my values is of more use to me than a dedicated one who talks a big game and waffles often. Tom Coburn, who I have steadfastly supported for over a decade, voted for TARP in 2008 and could hardly have dissapointed me more if he'd been caught in the Senate coatroom with three hookers, an eightball of blow, and a bag of stolen money. I don't look to politicians as role models for my own behavior, and neither do I direct my kid to see them as such. In fact, by their very carreer choice they have engaged in what I consider to be 'the original sin' of politics, reflecting a morally flawed nature. Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect of how an honest man can take no pleasure in exercising power over his neighbors, and I believe there is something to that. So I don't really object to Bill Clinton still being on the poitical stage (if the allegations of attempted rape by Gore are true, that's another issue entirely), but just get tired of the double standard (mostly perpetuated by the press) and by hearing how every conservative with an unpaid parking ticket needs to be hounded from public office.
So then of course you wouldn't object to Obama calling Sarah Palin up to the White House to discuss energy policy and ways to dislodge the politically entrenched oil interests from the upper reaches of federal power, which she had a lot of success with at the state level in Alaska (using many methods I firmly disagree with, but would be right up Obama's alley)?
Obama can call up whomever he wishes to discuss policy, but I don't agree with you that Sarah Palin knows energy policy well. Nor do I agree that she has dislodged the politically entrenched oil interests from the upper echelons of Alaska State politics. She pretends to; but we're talking about a person whose slogan about energy policy is "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "Cap and Tax." I've seen nothing from Palin that indicates a knowledge of Energy Policy beyond such slogans.
There is an imbalance in applying a standard at work here. I agree. But that imbalance applies as well to conservatives, who, much more so than liberals, make morality a fundamental sine-qua-non for acceptable politicians, and yet seem to overlook it when it comes to folks like Palin, Gingrich, Limbaugh, and many, many others. I can understand why conservatives overlook it for the likes of Gingrich and Vitter and Limbaugh, because they are very much capable of discussing policy issues knowledgably and intelligently -- even if bombastically at times (as Limbaugh is wont to do). What I can't understand is why conservatives abandon their litmus test for Palin, who demonstrates a penchant for adept sloganeering but whose knowledge is suspect.
Yes, there is an uneven application of the litmus test from liberals against conservatives instead of against their own; but that unevenness in application applies as well from conservatives against liberals instead of against their own. In my state, Louisiana, David Vitter is likely to be re-elected easily in spite of his clear involvement in illegally hiring prostitutes. Conservatives will go to extremes to rail on the moral transgressions of Bill Clinton or John Edwards, or even simply the rumor of something untoward by Al Gore, and yet they'll slap Vitter on the wrist for something equally as repulsive (if not more so, for the illegality of Vitter's actions) and then raise money for his re-election, while cheering him on as he pronounces his support for the birtherist cause.
So, I do see your being upset by a perceived "double standard" as really coming out of a defensiveness grounded in your own conservative ideological leanings and not out of an objective evaluation of how the standard is applied. While it is true that liberals tend to downplay their own side's transgressions while uplaying the other side's transgressions; conservatives do the same. There is, in fact, no double standard here.
"Nor do I agree that she has dislodged the politically entrenched oil interests from the upper echelons of Alaska State politics."
I think her record disagrees with you there, but that really wasn't my point. Likewise, I don't recognize Clinton as any kind of authority on job creation, but the point is, you talked about how much his credibility had been damaged by his moral transgressions, both with you and within the party, and then in the very next post justified Obama calling him in for a consultation based on his authority on the subject. We can disagree about the merits of Clinton and Palin's supposed authority on various issues, but when you talk about how embarrassing it is to have podunk, classless, lowbrow drama-laden people entertaining positions of political leadership, it rings somewhat hollow to me.
As to your bewilderment about her continuing prospects as a POTUS contender, I concede that this has more to do with a weak field of competitors than a bevy of inherent strengths belonging to Palin. And as I said in my original post, I think you are about to start seeing support for Palin as a Presidential candidate decline, as a lot of people who were waiting to see what she did with herself after the 08 election begin to draw conclusions about her in advance of 2012.
And yes, I do agree that there is plenty of the same on the conservative side in regards to the standard we are talking about. The real doubl standard, IMHO, has to do with how the media reports on this stuff. The John Edwards affair had to be confirmed by a freaking tabloid because the national press wouldn't touch it, and reporting on the Al Gore incident has been very subdued, while unfounded rumors about Palin were tossed about daily on every major network and in every paper during the last election.
Post a Comment