Comments on: Why Palin Scares the Elite – of Both Parties

By: cam1

cam1 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:45:17 +0000

Mark,
That article you cite gives a lot to chew on. While it has much thought, I can find it misses or misanalyzes on several points. First it makes an assertion that there are 3 American Republics. This assertion fails to recognize the significant changes that came about during the 20th century that allowed all Americans equal protections and the right to vote. As such considering America the oldest country is mistaken as it did not actually become what it is until the Civil Rights Act of 1963.

Second, it states,
“As the government has grown in size and reach, it has justified its claims to power by accepting ever more responsibility for the economy and society.”
As usual, writers coming from this point of view fail to recognize what it is that government actually has accomplished and that which so many take for granted. Take for example the numerous infrastructure systems made up by millions of miles of roads, rail lines, ports, water supply systems, sewage systems, bridges, reservoirs and so much more. For the majority of this infrastructure there exists no free market alternative that could replace those things that have been done by government for the good of all. So, the alternative is to promise to the masses that these things can be delivered without cost. Just like the promises made by credit card companies these promises are false and reckless. But like anyone who promises something for nothing Palin delivers.

By: fr00tn00b

fr00tn00b — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:42:16 +0000

Cluster: your “logic” is as follows:

1- fr00tn00b doesn’t like Sarah Palin
2- Sarah Palin is a woman.
3- Therefore, fr00tn00b hates all women

Way to go, bro.

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:40:14 +0000

Your worship of him is nauseating…tireoflibbs
————————-

Perhaps, but it is nowhere near to the love, adulation and devotion that Mark & y’all show for Palin.

Now that’s what I call really nauseating.

By: tiredoflibbs

tiredoflibbs — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:59:29 +0000

CO, Obamateur was nothing but a flash in the pan – bright light, loud noise, a puff of smoke, then …….. NOTHING.

Only the lingering acrid odor remains…..

He has not been the foreign relations dynamo that you have been fooled to believe. He has alienated many leaders with hi arrogant snubs and teleprompted speeches. His campaign was full of promises and sounded good to the useful idiots, but in reality it’s nothing and lacking any form of substance.

Your worship of him is nauseating.

By: cluster

cluster — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:07:05 +0000

Rico,

I am going to consider the pajamas media opinion to be slightly better informed than yours.

OK?

By: Mark Noonan

Mark Noonan — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:01:27 +0000

Ricorun,

In the end, the author only gives Cheney better marks for overall preparedness prior to assuming office.

Do read the entirety of both articles – even if you don’t agree, you’ll at least understand where we on the right are increasingly coming from.

By: ricorun

ricorun — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:21:22 +0000

I’m sorry, that last sentence should have read, “the rest of the Pajamas Media article confirms my opinion that Logic should be a required course in secondary education.”

By: ricorun

ricorun — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:08:57 +0000

Perhaps I should wait until I have read both articles all the way through, but I doubt I have the time. At any rate, I wondered about the first paragraph of the first article… “The frenetic hostility to Sarah Palin, even by many on the Republican side, is unnerving, because her qualifications to be president are objectively better than those of almost anyone who has been on the national ticket over the past decade.”

That would have to include George W. Bush, right? If so, what exactly does “objectively better” mean? Whatever measure you want to name, that doesn’t sound like a reasonable conclusion to me. Consequently, the next sentence, “A reasonable conclusion is that these qualifications are precisely the cause of the hostility.” is meaningless.

It is meaningless, that is, unless you assume a rather free-form definition of “political elite”. I mean really, consider how you have to stretch the definition in order to get both Bush and Obama to apply. And once you do, what logical arguments are left?

Again, I mention my opinion that Logic should be a required course in secondary education.

By: cluster

cluster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:53:28 +0000

fruity displays his latent sexism in his most recent post, proving once again that liberal men are misogynists. I mean look at how they treated Hilary.

Thanks fruity.

By: Mark Noonan

Mark Noonan — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:39:35 +0000

spook,

Scared and hateful – and that is what will be the downfall of the left…and the larger elite.