She will have an eye for us on the Russians.

Guess what? I bet neither Stewart of Cameron could either.

However, I don't like people being demonized on shoddy reporting and lynch mob mentality based on mind reading and questionable "facts".

None of the five people I talked to last week that wanted to make fun of her could.

Wasn't it NAFTA she was unable to name all the countries in? And that's just three.

She also could not name all of the countries in North America, he said, not even the NAFTA partners.

DISTRUST FOR THE MEDIA IS COMMON SENSE: Nicholas Kristof will never admit it; men of his type will deny to the end. But distrust for his cohort is unavoidable, given their own unending misconduct. Let’s examine a pair of cases—one of which almost surely put George W. Bush in the White House.

Case one: Dissing Quayle: How inane, how arrogant, is Kristof’s class? In June 1992, Vice President Quayle misspelled a word—and your vacuous press corps was off to the races. For years, Quayle was trashed as an idiot for this troubling bit of behavior. And by the way—how inane, how inept, were the lords and ladies who staged these endless attacks? Consider the way the Washington Post treated Quayle’s run for the White House. In April 1999, Quayle announced that he would be a candidate. Result? We quote from the start of David Von Drehle’s astonishing front-page “news report”—from the Post’s astonishing, front-page report about “Quayle, the human punch line:”

VON DREHLE (4/14/99): Dan Quayle doesn't see himself as others see him.
That's the key, according to his close friends and advisers...

Dan Quayle, the human punch line, scorned on scores of Internet sites, shoo-in for the late-night talk show Hall of Fame—enshrined somewhere between Joey Buttafuoco and Kato Kaelin. The man who said:

"I didn't live in this century."

And, at an AIDS clinic during the early days of the drug AZT: "Are they taking DDT?"

And, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." (He was trying for, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste.")

That is not the way he sees himself. The Dan Quayle running for president is another character altogether...

Von Drehle amused himself and his readers with a portfolio of Quayle’s greatest hits. But uh-oh! How inept—how “untrustworthy”—was the Post scribe? In fact, Dan Quayle had never made that laughable comment about AIDS and DDT. In 1992, Quayle had actually said “ddC”—not “DDT”—in discussing the treatment of AIDS. In fact, he had correctly inquired about a real treatment for the disease. But uh-oh! A Post reporter had known less than Quayle, and so the paper had bungled this matter in real time; back in 1992, the Post had ridiculed Quayle for saying DDT, then had quickly moved to correct its error. But so what? Seven years later, on the day Quayle announced, Von Drehle went out and bungled the topic again! And of course, he did this as he told the world how utterly stupid Quayle is!

“Untrustworthy?” “Arrogant?” Tell us why people should think something different as we review that “news report” from page one of the Post—a “news report” whose mocking tone would have been amazing even if its claims had been accurate.

Were any of them running for Vice President at the time?

Seriously, the point is that knowing this kind of stuff is kind of a requirement for a Vice President, wouldn't you think?

Why are women always judged differently than men? There is no way a female politician, even if she was more capable than Obama, would have gotten through the campaign without being savaged for running for President, if she had two small children like Obama.

The context was in regards to NAFTA. So Cameron is wrong in stating that it's simple 3 countries in NA that she couldn't name.

But the real point here is that neither Cameron, Steward, or whatever Joe The Plumber you were talking to was running for VP of the US, a heartbeat away from the presidency. And the rebuke isn't simply about knowledge of facts. The criticism-at-large about Palin, and it's a valid one, is that she simply doesn't care to know. She's proudly ignorant, like Bush is. Completely devoid of curiosity. Her answer to everything is in the Bible, and if it's not in the Bible, then it's not worth knowing.



Palin is a proven pathological liar. She has lied repeatedly throughout the campaign about her own record and that of Obama. She accused Obama of pallin' around with terrorists, said he was a socialist, and questioned his patriotism and love of country. So if she's worried about being demonized or unfairly maligned, she can go fuck herself.

yet you are so willing to take these other two actors at face value.

Can you do me a favor, mdana, and take your sexism high horse and shove it deep, deep up your ass? Please?

Nothing anyone is criticizing Palin for has anything to do with her being a woman. Not the clothes, not her stupidity, not her kids. None of it. I've been attacking Bush's stupidity for 8 years, and Palin is simply another Bush. People have attacked both Clinton and Edwards for $400 haircuts. And people have been almost universally praising Palin for being a good mother to her kids, and she's been inexplicably applauded for not aborting Trig, as if abortion is the only way to deal with a special needs baby.

This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with how what a farce of a candidate Palin was and how irresponsible McCain was for picking her.

Manly Morons

by digby

I mentioned this before, but with the cable new networks all breathlessly reporting that Sarah W. Palin is a moron --- and people like Chris Matthews now opining that anyone who isn't smart can't possible be president, I feel it's necessary to point out that being a moron is something the Republicans and the media have shown a rather remarkable tolerance for up until now:


Q: What do you think of tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how can we resolve conflicts between tribes and federal and state governments?

Bush: Yeah... yeah, tribal sovereignty means that, sovereign. You're a... you're a... you've been given sovereignty and you're... viewed as a sovereign entity. (laughter) And therefore, the relationship between the federal government and the tribes is one between sovereign entities.


That man had been president for nearly four years at that point and was about to be reelected. I don't recall anyone but a bunch of scruffy bloggers having a problem with the fact that he clearly didn't have fucking clue what sovereignty even meant --- and was nation building in Iraq at that very moment.

...

Seriously. Entire books have been written devoted to the stupid things that this man has said as president. He's an idiot.

So is Sarah Palin, (which is why I've always called her Sarah W. Palin) but please, these gasbags helped create the myth that to be president all you need was a "gut" and an attitude and the real Americans didn't want some smarty pants, egghead for a leader. To act as though they believe that being intelligent is some sort of requirement for high officeis just bullshit.


Not so long ago:


MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.


I guess it's ok to be a moron if Tweety gets all hot and bothered by your manly swagger.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Delightful Dinosaurs

by digby

John McCain is saying that the Georgetown party circuit is turning up its snobby collective nose at Sarah Palin because she's such a down-to-earth gal whom they hold in disdain. (Sally Quinn said that John McCain is "an absolutely delightful dinner partner," however.) And in one way, he's right.

Kathleen Parker, who has gained an incredible amount of cache among the cognoscenti lately for saying that Palin should resign from the ticket, claims that she knows nothing of the Georgetown party circuit:



"I haven't gotten an invitation yet, but I am available," said Parker, who splits her time between Georgetown and tiny Camden, S.C. She said most of her big-city socializing consists of sidewalk chats, occasionally involving dogs.


You see, she's just a down to earth gal too --- just like Palin. Isn't that something?

Palin is upending all the normal assumptions. You have the allegedly down home Parker wandering around Georgetown with her muttssaying that Palin is unqualified --- and everyone acts as if that's some sort of shocking development. But Parker is the person who wrote a book called "Save The Males"


Beginning with a history of the female empowerment movement, Parker explains how for the past 25 years, males have been indoctrinated from the schoolhouse on the idea "women good, men bad." She lays out the history of this phenomenon as she sees it, beginning in 1989 when Harvard professor Carol Gilligan claimed research showed that girls were drowning in a patriarchal education system. From that research, feminists and liberals latched onto the idea that girls suffered from low self-esteem. An all-out effort was launched to push girls to the front of the line and praise their every effort - often at the expense of boys.

Much of Parker's arguments put the plight of males squarely on the shoulders of these feminists and liberals as well as an ongoing campaign by Hollywood and advertisers to portray men as dolts and women as capable and efficient. Even schools have gotten into the act, rewriting textbooks that now devote as much space to women as to men. On this topic, Parker relates, "This is a nice idea, except that women simply haven't accomplished as much as men in the areas that make history. I know this is blasphemy, but there's no way around the facts. Women have done great things, no doubt. Radium! Madame Curie, you rule! ... Martha Washington was a great woman to be sure, but she did not, in fact, lead the American Revolution. George did, and it's his face, not hers, on the dollar bill. We have to try to deal with that."


Now, I'm not saying that Sarah Palin is qualified. She certainly has proven in spades in the last few days that she is woefully unprepared for the job. But Parker is hardly a credible critic, considering that she believes pretty much all women aren't particularly accomplished and that trying to change that is unfair to men. I am unimpressed wit her "startling" realization that Palin should remove herself from the ticket.

But what of our other doyenne of Georgetown, who loves sitting next to the delightful dinner companion, John McCain. (Does he playfully whisper "you lovely trollop" in her ear do you suppose?) Perhaps she is more credible on the issue.

Here's her view:


KURTZ: Ed Henry, does any of this make you cringe? I mean, when Joe Biden tragically three decades ago was in a car accident where his wife and one of his kids was killed, nobody said, oh, how could he take his Senate seat because he's got two young kids at home who need a father? I mean, these are questions that seem to be asked of women.

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. I think you're absolutely right.

I don't think Sally's a pinhead, just for the record, and I have admired her work for a long time.

QUINN: Thank you so much.

HENRY: But I can't believe what I'm hearing from you though, Sally, and I can't believe what Emily said, basically that, you know, how could she be a mother and be vice president? Why are you not saying the same thing about Barack Obama? He's a father of two young daughters who look quite beautiful.

How could he possibly, then, by this standard you're creating, go to Washington and be president, which I assume is more important than vice president, we would all agree or just as important? And why are you not questioning whether he could be a good father?

I just think there's a double standard. And I thought the whole point of women having equal rights was that they could have a family and a career. And secondly, that men, as fathers -- and I'm a father -- should be just as active as the moms are. So I don't understand.

KURTZ: Let me get a brief response from Sally.

QUINN: It ain't going to happen. I mean, men and women are different. Every single one of my friends -- I've been a working mother for 26 years -- every single friend practically that I have is a working mother.

They are constantly in a state of guilt and conflict. They take on the burden of the child rearing, and the husbands do not. Men and women are different, and every mother and every father knows that in his or her heart.


Again, Palin is a dramatically unqualified candidate and deserves the ridicule she is receiving for her utter lack of knowledge about ...well, anything. I'm not defending her. But I think we all have come to realize that her guilt and conflict as a working mother is the least of her problems.

Both Parker and Quinn are completely full of shit. Palin is unqualified purely on her own, individual merit as a politician. Let's make sure we don't put them on some sort of feminist pedestal just because they criticized her. In fact, where the two of them are concerned, McCain is right. They are a couple of snooty rich elites who believe that women (other than themselves) should lead lives proscribed by traditional gender roles. Their problem with her isn't her basic lack of knowledge --- they believe that no woman in her position should run for office no matter how qualified and intelligent she is. It's not the same thing at all.

Interesting you revert to sexist/homophobic imagery to point out how how tolerant you are.

I think all citizens deserve competent representation and deserve fair trials, even creeps like Tom Delay and Ted Stevens. It doesn't do American citizens any good if politicians do not get fair trials in front of the public as are represented by the media. We lose top much if someone is deemed guilty of something they are innocent or should be acquitted when they are guilty of some things but not of this particular crime.

As are Cameron (fabricated Kerry quotes during the 2004 election, lied about McCain supporting a provision in a GI Bill that didn't exist, among many other instances)and McCain's team (no need to doccument the attrocities) according to your criteria, yet you are so willing to take these other two actors at face value.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/02/nation/na-fox2
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/19/mcc ... n-gi-bill/


http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/02/nation/na-fox2

Actually I'm not, genius. Here's what I said earlier:

"The fact is that the lies from both Palin's people and McCain's people have been so egregious that we might not ever know the real truth. And that was the problem with their campaign from the beginning."

The specifics of the he-said she-said are unimportant to me. They are simply a small part of the overall picture of Palin, substantiated by her interviews with Curic and others, that the woman is simply an incurious religious fanatic dunderhead unfit for the vice-presidency of the United States. I felt the same way about Bush. it has nothing to do with gender. She can be a woman and still be an idiot and a liar.

My point wasn't about tolerance. It was about your playing the sexism card at the drop of a hat just to score cheap political points. And you just did it again. I guess it must be habit forming.



From straw men to non sequitors? Palin is not on trial. This is about Palin's qualifications as a VP candidate. She's a proven liar and a proven ignoramus.

Instead of stupidly accusing us of sexism for pointing out the bloody obvious about her, maybe you should make the case for Palin's knowledge, competence, and seriousness. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then what the hell are you going on about?

I feel like Palin in this particular instance is not getting a fair hearing by the media. I think it is dangerous even if it is someone I don't like. That is my point.

Were any of them running for Vice President at the time?

Seriously, the point is that knowing this kind of stuff is kind of a requirement for a Vice President, wouldn't you think?

bkb you believe that Obama didn't know how many states there were? He got through 20 odd yrs of schooling and many more yrs of politics and was born in the 50th state...but somehow believed there were seven extra states somewhere?

You believe that?

To clarify, since I'm such a fan of clarification, I realize it was a simple case of misspeaking.

But, bkb says: "Too busy bagging Sarah Palin for not knowing Africa was a Continent and let's Obama slip by without knowing how many States we have"

All I want to know is if he really believes Obama thinks there were more than 50 states. And why/how he could believe that.

All I want to know is if he really believes Obama thinks there were more than 50 states. And why/how he could believe that.