Front and Center

Politics, society, and other random randomness

Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

Another Person Who Agrees With Me–Reagan Would Be Persona Non Grata in Today’s GOP

On a couple of different occasions, I wrote about how former President Ronald Reagan probably could get elected by today’s GOP no matter how much they revere him (see here and here). It’s an opinion shared by a number of pundits across the blogosphere. Here is another example of exactly what I mean:

After trying (and failing) to disembowel Social Security, Reagan did an dramatic about-face and bailed out the program to the tune of $165 billion and made Social Security taxes more progressive, forcing upper-income Americans to shoulder more of the burden than their poor counterparts.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times! He passed the largest tax increase since World War II and introduced hefty new corporate taxes.

While conservatives like Sarah Palin tout Reagan’s record for standing up to the Soviet Union, they ignore that Reagan was attacked by far-right conservatives for being too conciliatory to the Communist bloc. When Reagan engaged in direct talks with Gorbachev and the Soviets, conservative leader Paul Wyerich wrote in The Washington Post, “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as clout.”

Go here to read the rest. It’s definitely worth the read.

Advertisements

Hmmm, more clear evidence that its only the consevatives that are violent

It seems I’ve spent a good bit of blog time this past week trying to show that yes, lefty rhetoric is at least equal to that from the right.  It also seems that many on the left will never accept this, no matter how much evidence is shown to them.  That’s ok.  After a while, one either accepts it or just continues to look out of touch.  Just a few more bits of how nice and polite the gentle left is…

From Big Journalism:  someone posts a nice, pleasant message on Twitter about Palin, then gets upset that it gets publicity and asks youtube to take it down due to “privacy issues.”

The result was this video, Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin, originally posted at YouTube. It’s since been cross-posted on Vimeo because of a takedown notice they received from YouTube in response to a privacy complaint. That’s right, one of the haters who was brave enough to publicly tweet her yearning for the death of a former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate is now suddenly concerned for her Twitter privacy.

A politician says new Florida gov Rick Scott should be put up against a wall and shot. Guess which was a Dem and which was a Repub:

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” an Oct. 23 Times-Tribune story quoted Kanjorski as complaining. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

Ok, we can safely say “point proven” and move on.

Via OCD3 and CNN: Palin ain’t Reagan

Much debate has been had about Sarah Palin and pinning blame on her regarding the Arizona shootings.  I’ve had an interesting time with this–balancing my opinion that she shouldn’t be blamed the way the left is applying blame to her and the right, while trying not to come across as a Palin fan, which I am not.  Still, I appreciate different perspectives, and my good friend (and Front and Center contributor OCD3) caught this article on CNN and recommended I post it.  In it, Paul Begala explains how “Palin is no Ronald Regan:”

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Image via Wikipedia

When she first burst on the national scene, I watched her convention speech an

d could not imagine Ronald

Reagan delivering it. She was sarcastic and caustic and harsh — everything Reagan was not. I felt the same thing watching her post-Arizona video presentation. The Gipper was a tough partisan and a strong conservative, but he had a sunny, optimistic worldview and a resilient, Teflon manner that slipped

punches, drawing in even those who disagreed with him, and driving Democrats to distraction.

Reagan understood the biblical wisdom that “A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.” Palin seems hell-bent on using the most grievous words (including the calumnyblood libel“) to stir up still more anger: the one thing we already have a surplus of.

Palin’s Map or when crosshairs aren’t really crosshairs

Interesting article on Townhall from Neal Boortz.  Whether or not you like him as a host, he actually makes an interesting comparison.  While members in the Palin camp say that the marks on her infamous Facebook map were not crosshairs (and Boortz backs this up), there are other maps that do depict bullseyes with politicians as targets–and they were created by Democrats:

OK … just what map are we talking about here? Several months ago during the heat of the 2008 midterm elections Sarah Palin put Giffords on her “target list” of Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. The list included a map featuring what the media and those on the left are calling telescopic sight images placed over vulnerable districts. Somehow, the liberals have construed that to mean that Sarah Palin literally wanted to “target” Giffords to be shot.

More on the shooting in AZ of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords

From the UK Daily Mail, “America’s elite hijack a massacre to take revenge of Sarah Palin:”

History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins.

John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers.

Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.

But those lessons from ­history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shooting-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html#ixzz1Aq64ytkB

From Reason.com, “The Extreme Rhetoric about Extreme Rhetoric:”

But this debate about the “tone” of American politics is ideologically unidirectional, designed not to elevate debate but to vilify a political enemy. The call for calm—with its frequent invocations of Tea Party “fascism”—is stupid partisan politics dressed up as incoherent moral politics.

From the Huffington Post, Rev Jesse Jackson weighs in on “Hate Speech in Arizona:”

In Arizona, the kindling was there. The economy has been hit hard by the financial collapse, with employment opportunities for young people particularly limited. With families losing jobs or homes, fear and depression are inevitable. Add to this a venomous, racially charged debate on immigration and health care reform, as well as some of the worst gun-control laws in the country.

And a good one from David Harsanyi at RealClearPolitics, “A Phony Climate of Hate:”

The always-civil Jacob Weisberg of Slate was more forceful in this regard, claiming that “at the core of the far right’s culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government.”

Which, as you know, should not be confused with those heady times liberals claimed that George W. Bush was “not my president” or that we needed a “regime change at home.” That kind of talk strengthened the legitimacy of government. Just as the “far right” — and I will assume this consists of anyone not named David Frum — could probably make the case that demanding government honor its constitutional limits is a demand for legitimacy.

We can argue about those things, I know. We can cobble together stupid remarks by radio talk show hosts or union activists or members of Congress and smear half the country. We can play tit for tat with tea party banners and anti-war bumper stickers and dig up some figurative rhetoric that sounds over-the-top retroactively and blow it out of proportion.

Why do people hate Sarah Palin so much?

I’ve often seen how people (usually left-leaning) react to anything that has to do with Sarah Palin.  Just the mention of her name evokes a visceral reaction from many that makes me scratch my head.  I’m not  a fan of her, but I don’t see her as being any worse than any other politicians.  The only difference between her and most other politicians is that she actually has a following.  Is that it?

On the Huffington Post, there is an article about how Palin child Willow had a meltdown on Facebook in response to someone criticizing her mom’ s TLC show.  While what she said was enough to have gotten me grounded for life if I had said the same at age 16, it has given Palin detractors another chance to take shots at her and her entire family.  It is as though people are so anxious to hate the other side that they must make it personal.

Calm down, people.  She’s just another politician.