Obama '08?

A European conservative on palin:

I know exactly which seconds Sarah Palin killed the last piece of my conservative soul. On 28.52-29.19 in the C-Span video “Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) Full Speech at the RNC”. Right before, Sarah Palin said: “al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophical harm on America and he is worried that someone won't read them their rights”.






At first the crowd cheers at the political punch. Then you have a few seconds when people start to think about what they just heard. And then, it's like a posse that cheers even louder. The rule of law was suddenly replaced by the rule of man where we don't have to care about reading them their rights anymore.

At first, I didn't pay attention to what actually happened there. I watched the video several times until I had to stop right there and stare. Then I felt ashamed, dusted off an old Billie Holiday CD and played “Strange Fruit” repeatedly to remind myself about what actually happened in that video. What we saw was the end of conservatism as we knew it.






When I grew up in Sweden and Finland, it was easy to be a conservative, because Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the voices of reason. It wasn't necessarily their politics that made them successful, but what their opponents didn't have.

Take Ronald Reagan and the Berlin Wall. When he said to Gorbachev to tear it down, lots of leftists in my home town claimed that Ronnie was the dangerous one. Why? Because the wall protected East German socialism from western corruption. Man, did they change their minds when the wall came down or what? Those leftists just didn't have any common sense.

Or take Margaret Thatcher. When she became prime minister, Great Britain was in a recession. Just like in Spain and Greece today, the unions had an unproportionate political power they couldn't handle in a responsible way, simply because they lacked a voice of reason. The British union bosses should have been challenged and corrected from within the Labour party, but no one had the spine to do it.

But the annoyingly self-righteous Margareth Thatcher had the spine, challenged the union bosses, left Labour in despair and that way plowed the way for a young, charismatic Labour politician who would change the party and plunder the Conservatives in the elections: Tony Blair. Blair played the role of the voice of reason in such an eloquent way that he made Margaret Thatcher look like a vicious old hag.

Needless to say, when Gordon Brown took over after Tony Blair and reintroduced the boring political culture of Blair's predecessors, Labour got hit in the polls. However, without Margaret Thatcher's voice of reason, we wouldn't have heard about Tony Blair and her political opponent Labour wouldn't have been vitalized.

But today conservatism is no longer the voice of reason and Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. We screwed up conservatism right efter 9/11 when we identified the threat as “Muslim” and “Islam”. The fact that Osama bin Laden wants a religious war doesn't mean we have to give him one. Instead, we should have taken the chance to do our part in protecting Islam against terrorism.

Then we screwed up our support for the liberation of Iraq. The issue should have been the unjust UN sanctions that killed millions of Iraqis and Iraq's real weapons threat, something the brilliant Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus wrote about in an article in the Washington Post.

Instead, many conservatives made the liberation of Iraq to an issue about punishing the Muslim world for 9/11. Most wouldn't agree today, but that's how bloodthirtsty many of us were then. I'm so glad I managed to retain my own voice of reason during those months, but I have to tell you, even I had my conservative rule of man moments.

Today, conservatism is held hostage by that growing fringe that cheered when Sarah Palin said “...and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights”. Problem is, there is no room for a voice of reason on the Palin fringe, since her fans claim that she is the voice of reason.

Sarah Palin, a wonderful motivation speaker and a horrifying political creature, made me realize it's time to cut my conservative losses and move on. She could have been a new Ronald Reagan. She could have been a new Margaret Thatcher. Instead, she chose the rule of man, set a terrible example that will last for decades, emergized the fringe and made many of the rest run for the lifeboats.

And no, the Swedish conservatives aren't much better.

Daniel Kronlid, Sweden

Oh, I forgot! You have no idea what satire is!

I read your post, pom, and it is abundantly clear to this conservative that this guy named Daniel Kronlid still is one confused dude in regard to conservatism. He just doesn't get it, and actually just makes a fool of himself in writing this piece on Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin was and is exactly right in what she said, and anyone that understands conservatism and common sense would know why. Conservatism and common sense go together, they abide together, while liberalism and foolishness are bedfellows as well. What Kronlid doesn't get is it is not about the rule of man at all, its about the responsibility of a president as the commander in chief to the citizens of the United States, and that is why it takes a moral man to be a good president.

You never forgot. You never learned what it was in the first place. For satire to work, it must incorporate a grain of truth. Thats where you flunk.

Excellent article

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/

When his presidency is over and people ask "How did we not see it coming?" I will point out these two statements he made provided us with all the clues we needed (and which many of us, at the time, recognized).

Only if by 'excellent' you mean 'terrible.' Wernher is as partisan as they come, and doesn't seem to realize that 90% of the time, when discussing the Republicans, Obama is a) asked specifically about them, and b) is 100% correct.

"How did we not see this coming?" is already being asked by the Republican party, because Obama has basically been kicking their ass for a year and a half now. They have been unable to stop any of his signature legislation, only delay it. He has been as prolific in passing bills as any president in the first two years; and the hopes of a Republican takeover of the House or Senate are fading fast.

Cycloptichorn

And then you will take yet another belt of vodka, look into the mirror, and tearfully sing "Where Is Love?" from the musical Oliver.

Could it be that he upsets you by being literate and by having a firm grasp of recent politics?

****. I already have a signature line. That one above, though, could be even better, after extensive study of course.

Here we go again.

Professor of Public Administration Nancy Meyer-Emerick, using a scale developed by Professor of Psychology Robert Altemeyer, found Republicans, now mainly Conservatives, clustered at the high end of scales which show they are
Quote:
cognitively rigid, aggressive, and intolerant. They are characterized by steadfast conformity to group norms, submission to higher status individuals, and aggression toward out-groups and unconventional group members.

They are Quote:
more submissive to government authority and indifferent to human rights. They also tend to be more hostile and more highly punitive toward criminals, and more racially and ethnically prejudiced

John T. Jost of Stanford University et al., writing in the Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association found Quote:

psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, and terror management that causes conservatives to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of their cherished world views.

Psychologically speaking, pretty unsavory folks, these conservatives. [/size]

An accurate discription of far right religious conseratives. Also far left liberals. All are intollerant of others views and resort to name calling in place of reason.

Has anyone done a study on these pseudo-scientific assholes who continue to use utterly biased "research" to promote their personal political views?

Do you mean S. Robert Lichter? And, haven't you taken this out of context or has someone done it for you?

Not true.

Have to tell you that in my own life, I have seen the right wing tell anyone upfront as soon as they meet them that they are conservative whereas liberals keep mum.

As an English professor who must be on the outlook for plagiarism, I know how to look for it. Applied those methods to this quote. It doesn't exist in the form that you placed it here. It seems to come from a book by ann coulter called "Guilty" which is the "1709th most quoted book on kindle."

More research . . .

S. Robert Lichter directs a conservative think tank, the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

See, he starts with a conservative bias. According to Wiki: "Some critics, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and the Columbia Journalism Review, have criticized Lichter and the CMPA for holding a conservative bias of their own or for being funded by conservative foundations." The former is a progressive organization and the latter is one of the most esteemed journals in the country, published by the leading graduate school of journalism.

Furthermore, he was not a professor at Smith but received a National Endowment for the Humanities grant and did research as a fellow there.

Wow! He took government money! I suspect Smith wanted him there just to have a right-winger on campus.

Are you a Professor of English in a University? I doubt it.

Even if this is widely the case outside of your narrow sphere, what difference could it possibly make?