House of Eratosthenes

President Obama is the man Americans admired most in 2009, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are virtually tied as the most-admired woman.

The close finish by Clinton, named by 16% in the open-ended survey, and Palin, named by 15%, reflects the nation’s partisan divide. Clinton was cited by nearly 3 in 10 Democrats but only 6% of Republicans, Palin by a third of Republicans but less than 1% of Democrats.

Hmmm…for an alternative headline, how about “Republicans think six times more independently than democrats.” There’s something rather one-celled and Borg-like about your party when there’s that thick of a prohibition against thinking well of The Enemy.

I think, in fact, that this is the bigger story. Let’s see…maybe it’s a Patton/Rommel thing? You might be open and receptive to admiring the positive attributes, the “magnificent-bastard”-ness of your enemy, if-and-only-if you’re shouldering the responsibility of getting something done? And democrats are far less likely to do this. The “elect someone charismatic and wonderful to put gas in my tank” mindset inspires a tendency to engage in a rhetorical style of “you’re just a big ol’ poopy head.” The poll results suggest this is what’s going on…you read some right-wing blogs, and then some left-wing blogs…that further suggests this is what’s going on.

In fact you know what poll I’d like to see? I’d like to see a poll among registered democrats, in which they pick out one single statement from a series of multiple-choice options. Just one, to describe Sarah Palin. Let’s say four positive statements, two negative. A thousand participants. And make sure all four are indisputably true. The two negative, obviously, would be something like “not qualified to be President or Vice-President” and “completely irrelevant, people should stop talking about her.”

Ninety-nine-plus-percent would pick one of those two, over one of the four? Even if all four are fact-based, non-subjective, verifiably true?

If it really comes out that way, that’s a sad, sad thing. It doesn’t say anything about or against Palin herself, it says something about the people who run things right now. They aren’t grown-ups. They argue like six-year-olds. Participating in an argument between two others about what it is that should be done, they quickly abandon the discussion of what should be done, and start reciting pre-canned encyclopedias of negative attributes about the participants, letting ad hom carry the day. You’re unsophisticated. You’re hysterical. You’re stupid. You’re uneducated. You’re a closet homosexual. You’re insecure. You’re a creationist. You’re a hyyyyyppoooooccccrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiittteeee…………..

The realization that persons possessing negative attributes, can occasionally be right about something, is enough to logically devastate everything these people have to say. And most of us come to that realization in our teenage years, or in late adulthood, perhaps in late-late-adulthood — but after we’ve cut our teeth on being truly responsible for something. To think things out in ad hom, is a luxury enjoyed by people who haven’t gotten to this point just yet. Or who have built up a successful career by sifting through credit and blame like wheat from chaff, taking all the credit for themselves and blaming others.

There’s something rather one-celled and Borg-like about your party when there’s that thick of a prohibition against thinking well of The Enemy.

You are a MASTER of Unintended Irony, Morgan. See: the post immediately above this one. 😉
- bpenni | 12/30/2009 @ 10:40
?
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2009 @ 10:57
Just this: you begin with the quote above in this post, and then in your very next post you say “McCain talked some about Obama’s flawed policies…but made sure for every minute of that, there were two more minutes about Obama’s noble intentions.” Which, of course, is some poetic license/hyperbole on your part. But I’m not gonna take you literally in this case. There wasn’t quite a one out of three relationship between McCain’s criticisms of The One to his laudatory remarks about “good intentions.” Not that I remember, anyway.

Or, shorter: you beat up McCain (and Frum, et al) for doing exactly what you want the Dems to do vis-a-vis Miss Alaska. Sauce, goose, gander… 😉
- bpenni | 12/30/2009 @ 16:35
Au contrair. I’m criticizing the dems for two things: 1) For brooking no dissent whatever regarding members in their own ranks using their personal judgment to assess the character of another — clearly, any loyal lefty who utters the fateful words “I do admire what she’s managed to do with her life” is going to be drummed out of the club, that’s why you have this astounding less-than-one-percent statistic; and 2) for putting personality above policy. Surely, you’ve noticed haven’t you: Conservatives don’t agree with one another on a lot, but it’s pretty hard to find one who would interfere with Bill Clinton’s right to be folksy and talkative, or Barack Obama’s right to be garrulous. No conservative hates those liberals for such things…or not many do, anyway. An eyeball-roll is about the worst you’ll be able to find. There’s really no actual heat there. Contrast that with the liberals who bear some spiteful grudge against GWB for “smirking” and “swaggering”!

You’re confusing a lot of things here. Simply noticing that someone else has been effectively controlled — <1% means, there are orders being given, and obeyed — does not mean I desire to usurp that control. Somehow you've picked up that anyone with anything positive to say about Palin, must be thinking like a liberal. Your other confusion is between policy and personality. A superpower-status nation, during its elections, shouldn't be discussing personalities at all. I’ve been so consistent on that, that if you haven’t picked it up I have to wonder how much reading you’ve been doing around these parts. Palin’s personality is quite appealing and approachable, it’s true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that I personally place importance on such things…or her fantastic looking legs…et cetera. To this Palin fan, those things are just frosting on the cake, although I realize they’re far more important to other Palin fans.

I just want some sensible policies. Let’s call them “Up is up” policies. Knock it off with the Bizarro-world, spend-money-to-get-out-of-debt, defeat-our-enemies-by-being-nice nonsense. Six months ago I was whistling in the wilderness backing Palin, now people like Congressman King are waking up to what’s going on — in another six months this will be a clear majority view, if it isn’t already. People get tired of letting the kids drive the car after awhile.
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2009 @ 17:05
The idea that shrieking megalomaniac is “tied” with a visionary, no-nonsense leader like Palin……..is sickening. It’s one of those “What in the hell is WRONG with you people?” kind of moments.
- cylarz | 12/31/2009 @ 02:46

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Clinton, Palin Tied as Most Admired WomanWednesday, December 30th, 2009

Clinton, Palin Tied as Most Admired Woman
Wednesday, December 30th, 2009