June 11th, 2010

The Sarah Palin tata brouhaha

Just when you think political debate can’t descend any lower, it goes and takes a nosedive.

Case in point: the burning controversy over whether Sarah Palin’s breasts have had some recent enhancement of the surgical variety.

The rumor was fueled by blogs on the left, and is an example of the continuing liberal fascination with various intimate aspects of Sarah Palin’s body. Here’s the montage that launched a thousand speculations. The older photos are on the left and in the middle, and the newest (which purports to be of the rumored recent additions, and was taken at the Belmont racetrack) is on the right:

palin-boobs-wonkette.jpg

Now I will go on the record as saying that, although I myself have so far resisted the siren call of cosmetic surgery (much too much of a wimp), I’m not going to be criticizing politicians who go under the knife in order to look better. Joe Biden’s hair transplants and Nancy Pelosi’s botox injections—to name just two obvious examples from perhaps legions of possibilities—move me not.

I think that, especially in the world of harsh public exposure known as politics, it’s understandable to want to look your best, and as you age that becomes more and more difficult. And if Sarah Palin feels that, after mothering five children (or four, if you happen to believe Andrew Sullivan), her chest could use a bit of help, far be it from me to criticize her. .

That said, I think the case for Sarah having had implants is rather weak, although certainly possible. But those who suggest she has done so based merely on the evidence of the photo above in the white shirt are ignoring a couple of basic things about breasts, clothing, and posture—things most women learn some time during adolescence or shortly thereafter.

The first is that much the same can be accomplished by the wearing of a more structured bra than usual, imparting to the chest a bit more oomph.

The second is that shirts with a scooped and gathered neckline such as the one Palin wears in the photo on the right maximize the area in question. To do the opposite—to minimize—one can wear the sort of tailored blouses and suits Palin usually sports.

The third is that slumping ever-so-slightly (as in those photos on the left and in the middle) tends to make a person look less well-endowed, whereas standing up and arching the mid- and especially the upper back—as Sarah happens to be doing in the photo on the right—does exactly the opposite.

So posture can change the look of things quite a bit. In fact, here’s an example for you—another photo of Palin, taken at the racetrack on that very same day in that very same white shirt. In this one, however, Palin is not arching her back. You may note that, had this been the only Palin photo taken that day, the implant rumor would in all likelihood have never gotten off the ground:

palinbelmont.jpg

Ah, how the mighty have fallen.

72 Responses to “The Sarah Palin tata brouhaha”

  1. Curtis Says:

    One thing for sure got bigger after Tuesday: Her reputation as a kingmaker.

  2. Pablo Says:

    I can tell you first hand they are real…

  3. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Due to decreasing testosterone levels with age my interest in women as sex objects has decreased accordingly. Therefore, when Palin first emerged on the national scene my first impression was, “Hmm, she looks like Julie London, but talks like a person who understands the average American. How nice!”

    As the controversy has swirled around her, I have become amazed. Why are the progressives so hostile to a woman who speaks quite clearly to the middle of America. Is it because she has been a successful mother, wife, and politician and still looks good? Surely, they could not be afraid of her homespun conservative philosophy and way of speaking – could they? No, IMO, it is her looks that enrage them so.

    The accusations and brouhaha about breast augmentation seem to confirm that it is not so much her politics alone that stirs them up. Her glamorous appearance seems to offend their sensibilities. After all, aren’t the glamorous denizens of Hollywood all progressives? It just isn’t right (in their minds) that this politician should embody the wholesome beauty of an all American woman.

    If I were Palin I would start using anything (arched back, tight sweaters, uplift bras, etc) that enhanced those features that are now causing so much concern on the left. Anything to drive the left up a wall. Heh!

  4. mizpants Says:

    A similar dynamic seems to be at work in the case of the left’s crazy reaction to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, except that Hirsi Ali is a classical liberal, not a conservative. If she were not a beauty, she would not have aroused so much twisted ire.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    mizpants: Shortly before the 2008 election, I wrote this post about the strange phenomenon of the left attacking Palin for her looks. One thing I would add to that piece, if I were to write it again today, is that twentieth-century feminism was always a creature of the left; the left was not a johnny (jane?) come lately.

    One of the many things going on with the left and its attitude towards someone like Palin is that feminist women on the left believe that the left owns women’s sexuality. They believe their own myth that women on the right are sexually repressed and that the left has been responsible for unleashing its own women from the bonds of that repression (support for abortion is another tool in the arsenal of that liberation, which is one of the reasons that support is to them obligatory). That’s still another reason someone like Palin, who is clearly an attractive and sexual women although a conservative and pro-life, drives them nuts.

  6. Jewels Says:

    Conservatives: Yay women! Look at all of our special elections and primaries, our conservative women are doing fantastic!

    Democrats: …

    Conservatives: This is a day to celebrate a new breed of feminist victory. One that supports strong women who think for themselves and are brave enough to stand against the old-feminist dogma. And many thanks to Palin for supporting these candidates. She is an intelligent, common sense kind of person, a real breath of fresh air.

    Democrats: …. Sarah Palin… /head tilt/…

    Conservatives: Yes, it’s quite possible that her endorsements really made a difference-

    Democrats: -do you think… ?

    Conservatives: yes?

    Democrats: You think her boobs are real?

    Conservatives: What?

    Democrats: No, look at these pictures! Don’t they look… BIGGER, somehow?

    Conservatives: …

  7. mizpants Says:

    Neo, Yes. That’s so true, and it goes beyond sexual liberation to liberation generally. Only the left can liberate women. If the right shows an interest in helping free them from their burkas, the left says, coyly, “Oh, let’s not meddle! Let’s look to our OWN not-yet-complete liberation.”
    Meanwhile women are subjected to genital mutilation, honor killings, etc.

  8. Oldflyer Says:

    Neo, I saw pictures taken earlier during one of her military tours on another blog (which I read in addition to you, not in lieu. . .), that were very similar in appearance to the the one that started the speculation. I don’t think there have been significant changes.

    I am in the same situation as JJ, and I have to say that physically the most attractive feature of Mrs Palin were her eyes and cheekbones. Very sexy cheekbones.

    I hope that she did not waste her money. I do not think that most mature men rate a woman on her cleavage, or whatever the acceptable term might be. I think these men look at the whole package, which includes personality, intelligence, and accomplishment as well as physical attractiveness.

    The fools simply do not realize that every time they attack her, it simply boosts her profile–and energizes her admirers.

  9. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Tammy Bruce says that organized feminist groups are in the business of promoting left/progressive issues. If women’s issues are useful, feminist groups use them. If not, not. If a women’s issue contradicts left/prog positions, feminists oppose it.
    See, for example, the fems on the Duke lax hoax, and their indiffierence to a real rape–Katie Rouse–at Duke, or the Frank Lombard atrocity.
    It’s the narrative, not the woman who is assaulted. She’s either important, or not, depending on whether her case forwards the narrative.
    Hard to think of a clearer example of Bruce’s point.

  10. SteveH Says:

    It’s been said that somewhere along the way liberals and conservatives swapped places. I present exhibit A.

    What we have in women like Sarah is a cultural movement spontaneously coming out of the folk. It certainly wasn’t manufactured by media elites. And what we’re seeing from liberals is an uber intolerant, dogmatic, fearful of change attempt to squash such a movement. There is no difference between these liberals and the hostile detractors back in the day of another refreshing cultural movement that came from the folk, rock and roll music.

    Liberals have become the intolerant people they accuse others of being.

  11. Gringo Says:

    A reason for this speculation is to continue the leftist narrative that Sarah Palin is a dimwitted yahoo. Attacking her for her ideas- and she has been fairly prolific in posting her thoughts on Facebook- would give credence to the idea that Sarah Palin has a mind of her own. Speculating on breast jobs continues to label her as a good-looking dimwit who has nothing to add to the conversation but a pretty face and big boobs.

  12. SteveH Says:

    It’s not just Sarah’s looks liberals are scared of. Shes got all the qualities in a woman that requires zero government sympathy and support.

  13. will Says:

    Implants or not, she’s got what it takes. Oh yeah, I like her politics too. ;-)

  14. vanderleun Says:

    Neo, that’s the kind of hands-on analysis that keeps us all coming back.

  15. Curtis Says:

    The feminists (not the Palin kind, but the Gloria Steinem kind) are furious because Palin is a champion that demands an accounting. She is not supposed to exist. Her achievements are real and not a result of affirmative action, nor are they limited to a Women’s Studies Program. Against all the feminist’s arguments, crafted in pain and rage, one merely posits: But what about Sarah Palin.

  16. JohnC Says:

    I liked Palin from her first appearance on the national scene. Whether she articulates her thoughts in a logical cool a la Obamait fashion doesn’tnot bother me in the least. As I have opined here lots of times – she has charisma and the instincts of a solid leader. Arching her back now and then doesn’t hurt either, at least not from my view. That projects her case(s) even more forward.

  17. JohnC Says:

    doesn’tnot is = doesn’t

  18. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    jewels, don’t make me laugh so hard when I’m at work. You’ll get me in trouble.

    I edited one of neo’s sentences a little as follows: “The rumor was fueled by blogs on the left, and is an example of the continuing sexist, chauvinist liberal fascination with various intimate aspects of Sarah Palin’s body.” Can you even imagine how liberal commentators would react if it were conservatives who were babbling on so obsessively about a liberal woman’s body?

    As for whether any actual augmentation has taken place or not, I can’t tell from the photos — but from what I know about Sarah Palin, I’m guessing that if so, it’s more likely the result of an early new pregnancy (often one of the earliest signs, as those of us who’ve been there, done that know) than anything surgical.

  19. soupcon Says:

    Palin looks to have added some weight from her earlier photos, and it settled in an agreeable place…..

  20. Old Dad Says:

    The Palins put the typical liberal couple in a world of hurt. Both Palins are better looking than either of their liberal counterparts. Both Palins could beat the snot out of either of their liberal counterparts. Neither Palin could give a fig what either of their liberal counterparts thinks or says. And the Palins are rich, successful, happily married with a lovely family, and church goers. From the liberal perspective, what’s not to hate?

  21. gs Says:

    When I noticed Palin in September 2007 (sic), I viewed her as a potential President. I was delighted when McCain picked her and ecstatic about her acceptance speech. When she couldn’t walk her talk, I grudgingly excused her because she had not sought the nomination. But her resigning as governor was the last straw and her subsequent behavior has confirmed my disillusionment. I can’t imagine what could change my mind about her.

    Attractivenesswise, I don’t think Palin is aging well. I saw a close-up image and was surprised by how thick the pancake makeup was; it still didn’t conceal the crow’s feet. Palin could start looking like Harriet Miers overnight, and the resemblance would be more than skin deep.

  22. Curtis Says:

    “I can’t image what could change my mind about her.”

    Trolls don’t have a mind to change.

  23. gs Says:

    Curtis, not that it matters greatly to me, but I’d like to believe that you’re a leftist operative who is here to contaminate conservative discourse.

    Otoh, your attitude reminds me of Bush supporters’ back in the days when I posted that Miers was a dubious nominee for SCOTUS.

    I am the kind of right-leaning swing voter who elected Scott Brown after dropping the GOP in 2006/8. So keep up the good work maintaining the Permanent Republican Majority.

    You betcha.

  24. rickl Says:

    gs:
    I hate to inject myself in the middle of others’ disputes, but in all honesty your 6:11 pm comment has all the hallmarks of a “concern troll”. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    As for your 7:14 pm comment, am I to understand that as a “right-leaning swing voter who elected Scott Brown after dropping the GOP in 2006/8″ that you voted for Obama in ’08? And that you’re issuing a thinly-veiled threat that you will go back to voting for the Democratic Communist Party if conservatives piss you off? Doesn’t sound “right-leaning” to me.

  25. Curtis Says:

    Thanks rickl.

    gs, my prescription (litten up gud nah, y’ear): Get some of that pancake make-up, slather it on, put on your favorite Sarah Palin dress, and go disllusion yourself.

  26. SteveH Says:

    I kinda wish Palin would make speech notes on her tatas and whip em out as needed.

    And Gs is Bs. No adult with a shred of concern for the country and all that’s good would even consider a democrat for office in the last 10 years. Now we see why.

  27. SteveH Says:

    And the thing about a conservative woman, is she can’t help but age gracefully. They have no complex that time is doing them harm. They know very well the tradeoff of looks is well worth the arrival of a rational and reasoned nirvana. Theres nothing sexier and more attractive than a woman whose thrown off everybody elses opinion of who the hell she is.

  28. Paul Snively Says:

    Let’s not also forget this oldie but goodie.

  29. Jack Bunce Says:

    “Ah, how the mighty have fallen”

    Well played, Neo…well played! Funniest line evah!

  30. JohnC Says:

    SteveH at 8:35. You nailed it. It’s a wonderful thing to see and, of course, it’s wonderful being with her – the truly independent woman.

  31. LAG Says:

    As a man married to the mother of four now-grown children (all of whom were nursed by their mother), I would like to point out that both of these conditions helped increase the breasticular bounty. So, near as I can tell, Sarah is exactly what she advertises herself to be: a woman. Thanks be to God.

  32. Steve Says:

    Neo, it is odd that you did not mention Sarah Palin just had a baby. It is natural for her breasts to be larger.

  33. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Palin’s youngest child, Trig, is over two years old. She gave birth to him in the spring of 2008, before she was nominated to run for VP by McCain.

  34. Promethea Says:

    Jumping to the bottom of the thread, so I don’t know what others have said.

    I just have to say, nay scream: PROGRESSIVES ARE NOT FEMINISTS ! ! ! They are marxists. Or statists. Or wusses.

    I just finished reading Mark Steyn’s takedown of the left’s hatred of Hirsi Ali. Why do they hate her? Because she’s a feminist and they are marxists. Here’s the link:

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/10/the-lefts-strange-hostility/

    Sarah Palin is the perfect feminist: She does what she wants to do without letting social mores hold her back. I was raised in a society that held women back, so I know what that means. (Yes, Artfldger, I know more than you do about feminism, so don’t give me another lecture about marxism.)

    The whole point of feminism (not marxism) is supporting equal opportunities for women. That means supporting women’s sports, women in the military, women staying home and raising 12 children, etc. etc. Suing companies for every little infraction is just stupid. Life is not fair. To be a feminist, one doesn’t have to count numbers in every field. One has to use common sense. But just open the doors to various possibilities, and maybe a woman CAN be governor of Alaska, or President of the United States. Or a good hunter and athlete. Like Sarah Palin.

    Marxists, Progressives, and Liberals can’t stand Palin because they can’t stand anybody who doesn’t march in lockstep to their stupid ideas. Most of us on neo-neocon’s website can give personal testimony about how narrow-minded liberals, progressives, and marxists are. I won’t enumerate the things one MUST believe–we’ve discussed them over and over again on this website.

    The cardinal sins of Sarah Palin are: (1) anti-abortion, (2) likes guns and kills and eats meat, (3) has too many children, (4) supports the military, (5) is a believing Christian. The fact that she’s beautiful and has a north country accent gives stupid political fashionistas something to laugh at. If you think about it, it’s the same bigotry that was always used to keep women down. It’s also the bigotry toward midwesterners and other “flyover” people–I could give lots of examples, but won’t bother here.

    The affirmative action people recognize a threat in Sarah Palin. They should. She’s more accomplished than they are in so many ways.

  35. gs Says:

    From rickl:

    gs: I hate to inject myself in the middle of others’ disputes, but in all honesty your 6:11 pm comment has all the hallmarks of a “concern troll”. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Okay, I’m correcting you.

    It’s true that I consider Obama to be Bush on steroids and I seriously wonder if either major party is interested in governing competently. Rather than acting as fiduciaries for the public, the political class is treating the country like a liquidating trust.

    As 2012 approaches, the corollary to my opposition to Palin will be an interest in GOP governors who competently steer their states through the Recession. Daniels/IN, Christie/NJ and maybe Brewer/AZ come to mind. Perry/TX would be on the list if he, in this advanced modern economy, weren’t proactively trying to get creationism taught in public schools. Paul Ryan bears keeping an eye on. So do the Tea Parties.

    As for your 7:14 pm comment, am I to understand that as a “right-leaning swing voter who elected Scott Brown after dropping the GOP in 2006/8″ that you voted for Obama in ‘08? And that you’re issuing a thinly-veiled threat that you will go back to voting for the Democratic Communist Party if conservatives piss you off? Doesn’t sound “right-leaning” to me.

    Will this great nation, completely unnecessarily, sink in quicksand while each half of the population shrieks that it’s the other half’s stupid or demonic fault?

    My parents were destitute refugees from Communism and I have relatives who lived through it. If you equate the Democrats with Communists, well, no comment.

    In the past, a GOP candidate whom I perceived as competent could count on my vote. I hope that continues in the future.

  36. Oldflyer Says:

    For what it is worth, Sarah was on with Greta this evening. Greta asked the question, of course, and the answer was NO.

    SP and Greta both used this latest bruhaha to take a shot at the leftist feminists who sit on their hands when a conservative woman is the object of this sort of nonsense.

  37. Promethea Says:

    Well, I guess I didn’t add anything to the conversation in my post above. Next time I’ll read the thread first. ;-)

  38. gs Says:

    Oh, and I’ll add that I was disappointed by how Palin performed after the convention, but not irretrievably so.

    Had she slogged through the thankless job of governing and getting reelected governor (meanwhile cultivating a national presence), I might well have gotten over my disappointment.

    Her enemies in Alaska were harassing her with spurious ethics complaints. Had she tried to get the law changed before resigning, I would have taken that into consideration.

    (Btw, back when Mitt Romney returned to MA to run for governor, I hoped he’d build a record that would take him to the White House, but I wrote him off when he didn’t have the guts to risk a run for reelection in the Democratic year of 2006.)

    Afaic Palin worship in the Right resembles the former Obama worship in the Left.

  39. Timothy Says:

    Glad you cleared that up neo.

  40. Marc Says:

    This is such a non-story….. And I seem to be seeing more comments from the Right than the Left…

  41. neo-neocon Says:

    Marc: Yeah, sure, right. Not too many comments from the left in this thread, and practically none in this one as well.

  42. Gary Rosen Says:

    “One of the many things going on with the left and its attitude towards someone like Palin is that feminist women on the left believe that the left owns women’s sexuality.”

    Exactly right, neo. I would only add that it’s not just women, but the left and the Democratic party are addicted to identity politics in general. Any woman or minority who does not toe the line must be squashed. The last person to get the kind of savaging that Palin has received was Clarence Thomas.

  43. Perfected democrat Says:

    Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) speech:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJF4is4__A8&feature=player_embedded

  44. br549 Says:

    Enhanced or not, unless someone with greater credentials and capabilities emerges from nowhere, drawing my attention, it is my intent to help put this woman in office should the opportunity arise.

  45. CZ Says:

    She is being watched and monitored so closely some journalist schmuck moved in next door to her home.

    Don’t you think that IF she had augmentation someone involved in the medical procedure from receptionist to nurse to cleaning lady would have leaked the info to the MSM or National Enquirer for a cash payday?

    Leave her tits alone, people.

  46. Cappy Says:

    This requires further inspection. I volunteer.

  47. Oblio Says:

    A significant number of Progressives don’t seem to have ever had an idea that originated above the waist. Remember all the obsessing over George Bush in his flight suit? I found the number of people studying his groin to be more than a little creepy.

  48. Oblio Says:

    gs, I confess that I haven’t seen these unflattering photos of which you speak. Everything I have seen leads me to think that she is an extremely attractive woman, in addition to being an unusually effective political communicator. The measure of her effectiveness is this: she can change the frame of the narrative. She draws out attackers in waves from all sides, and yet she survives and fends them off, sending a few to the hospital; she’s the political equivalent of a Jackie Chan movie. How can we not watch and cheer?

    Now, who did you vote for in 2008? If Obama, you have some ‘splainin’ to do if you want your concerns to get taken seriously around here.

  49. Portia Says:

    So, sue me. I liked George Bush in his flight suit. Actually I think all that means is that I’m an hetero female who is not blinded by politics. He was a bit much of statist for me, but credit where due, he did some things right and looked d*mn good doing them and the little self-deprecating smile that popped out now and then didn’t hurt. (Yeah, odd of me, but I don’t like the “dead-glazed” look in a leader’s eyes, nor do I think it makes him cool or smart.)

    As for Palin I’ve said on this blog before and will again — and it’s a gut feeling, so I know I can’t give rational reasons. But it’s a very strong gut feeling which usually means my subconscious has added up things I don’t know I know — something is going to happen between now and mid 11. Don’t know what. Maybe “just” the midterm elections, maybe — heaven forbid — something bad on the world stage. After that, Sarah Palin will be the voice of America and the voice of the people, even if Obama is still in the White House. He’ll be a more and more marginalized bystander. Palin will be our next president. She has her work cut out for her. Fortunately, I think she’s up to it.

  50. Oblio Says:

    Portia, you misunderstand me. I thought Bush looked great in the flightsuit, too. My point was about people obsessing about gender-specific physical characteristics (was that delicate enough?) and sex appeal. I doubt that this would describe you, even if you found the man attractive.

    And you could be right about Palin’s destiny. The normal rules don’t apply to her. Furthermore, the current leadership class has been discredited in toto, and new leaders will be called forth from unexpected places: Cris Christy, Scott Brown, Palin, maybe Nikki Haley.

    And many of them will be women, and even attractive women. Bad news for the Helen Thomases of the world.

  51. Oldflyer Says:

    Neglected to mention in my report on Sarah and Greta that SP coined a new term; “Boobgate”.

    Sooner or later the Lefties will learn that they attack at their own risk.

  52. Curtis Says:

    Portia, we sure could be leading up to a “world event,” like WWI or WWII: Another financial crash, Iran nukes or threatens to nuke Israel, how about Obama getting assasinated–that’s one way for the Manchurian Candidate to do even more damage in his death than in his life. Ironic that Republicans need him alive more than the statists.

    What Sarah Palin has is character and strength and perhaps in some form, genius. It’s not a genius the statists recognize but somehow she keeps overachieving.

    Even such worthies as John Hinderaker at Powerline, who at first excoriated Palin for her decision to resign as Governor of Alaska

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/023975.php

    quickly noted other values

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024014.php

    and now is rather a strong supporter

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026017.php

    And NEO loved her from the beginning and predicted the backlash from the media whipping.

    http://neoneocon.com/2008/09/02/democrats-beware-the-backlash-to-palinsanity/

  53. rickl Says:

    Portia Says:
    June 12th, 2010 at 10:54 am
    Palin will be our next president. She has her work cut out for her. Fortunately, I think she’s up to it.

    From your lips to God’s ears. I’ve had much the same feeling since early September 2008. I believe she is up to it. I think she’s the real deal.

    /and the fact that she’s also hawt doesn’t hurt a bit. ;)

    Seriously, I think she’d be the ideal President in the current oil spill crisis. She has experience in dealing with oil companies. She knows we need oil, so she wouldn’t regard them as the enemy. She would work with the state governors in the affected areas and give them all the federal support she could. But she also knows how to knock heads together when necessary. Which is not the same thing at all as “keeping our boot on their neck”. I mean, really, what kind of American talks like that?

  54. JuliB Says:

    Just when I think I can’t despise the leftists any more than I do….

  55. Curtis Says:

    From the Wonkette link from NEO’s 11:42 comment:

    “Experts say straight women spend up to 37% of their time evaluating the breasts of their friends, enemies, peers and total strangers, while the number triples (to 111%) for lesbians.”

    37% if their time? And 111 % for lesbians! That’s 111%. How does one spend over 100% doing anything. And this is all true because an expert said it.

    And they say Sarah Palin is stupid.

  56. Tatyana Says:

    How does one spend over 100% doing anything[?]

    Curtis,
    a girl can dream, can’t she?

  57. Curtis Says:

    If the cats cooperate.

  58. FenelonSpoke Says:

    Wonkette says women spend that much time evaluating the breasts of other women?!!. T.hey should rename their site “The Onion II” or “Moronette”

  59. gs Says:

    Oblio Says:

    The measure of her effectiveness is this: she can change the frame of the narrative…

    As can a demagogue. As did Obama.

    …She draws out attackers in waves from all sides, and yet she survives and fends them off, sending a few to the hospital; she’s the political equivalent of a Jackie Chan movie. How can we not watch and cheer?

    History is not the equivalent of a Jackie Chan movie.

    Now, who did you vote for in 2008?

    Ah. The litmus test. My previous posts explained in some detail why I stopped supporting Palin. I also listed GOP politicians I have hopes for. But nevermind.

    …If Obama, you have some ’splainin’ to do if you want your concerns to get taken seriously around here.

    I couldn’t find a post that appointed you the decider of what’s taken seriously around here. If 53% of the electorate wouldn’t be taken seriously around here unless they did some explaining, good luck.

    I post online to work out my own views. It would be gratifying if that process were helpful to others, but that’s not my primary purpose.

    I post online to forestall my conscience. I’m no hero and no martyr, but f I live long enough to see the country arrive where I fear it might be heading, I want to be able to tell myself that at least I spoke out.

    …Palin’s destiny. The normal rules don’t apply to her.

    This sounds like magical thinking. If so, there is no basis for discussion: one Believes or one does not Believe.

    …Furthermore, the current leadership class has been discredited in toto, and new leaders will be called forth from unexpected places…

    As many are regretfully learning about Obama (and I have concluded about Palin), leaders called forth from unexpected places may do unexpected things that the callers will regret.

  60. Oblio Says:

    gs, I think you need to work out your own views a little more. Obama didn’t change the frame of the narrative at all. He floated on a cloud of conventional Left Democratic pieties that no one bothered to ask him to explain or defend. I hadn’t thought of him as a demagogue, but to the extent that he tells lies to whip up emotion, you may be right about that.

    Palin is self-evidently extraordinary, as far as I can see. We wouldn’t be discussing her this way if that weren’t true. What her ultimate capabilities and limits may prove to be, time will tell; but I am not willing to sell her short today based on her form so far. Neither do I see her as a conservative Messiah. I have considered her more an American Boudicca.

    The way we react to Palin says more about our own stories about identity and values than it says about her. She gets under your skin: why? What does the story of Sarah Palin say about your identity? What are your views about who should hold power? You seem to be afraid of some outcome for the Republic involving Palin, that requires you to “speak out” to “forestall” your conscience. What do you fear?

    If we took a poll among the readers of this site, I suspect we would find that a substantial majority believes that 53% of the voters acted foolishly in 2008 when they voted for an Obama that only existed in their imaginations. A fair number of them (but not all of them) are now suffering from buyer’s remorse.

    I could be wrong, of course.

  61. gs Says:

    Oblio Says:

    Obama didn’t change the frame of the narrative at all. He floated on a cloud of conventional Left Democratic pieties that no one bothered to ask him to explain or defend.

    The left wing of the Democratic Party was considered unelectable not too many years ago, but Obama brought them into power. He couldn’t have done it without Republican arrogance and incompetence–but one reason for the arrogance was that the Republicans thought it couldn’t be done. Yes, the country is having second thoughts, but the damage is done. Instead of Miguel Estrada and Janice Brown, we have Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    Palin is self-evidently extraordinary, as far as I can see.

    No argument from me about that. But being extraordinary is not a sufficient qualification for the Presidency.

    …I am not willing to sell her short today based on her form so far.

    I wouldn’t risk money I can’t afford to lose on a bet against her. That doesn’t mean I think she is good for the country.

    Neither do I see her as a conservative Messiah.

    Whereas I had extremely high hopes for her. I thought she might grow into a Reagan/Thatcher caliber of leader.

    I have considered her more an American Boudicca.

    Which would leave the role of the conquering Romans to the leftists and statists, no? I hope not. I suspect we both hope not.

    The way we react to Palin says more about our own stories about identity and values than it says about her. She gets under your skin: why?

    As I indicated previously, she crossed my screen back in 2007 and I had high hopes for her. Her unwillingness to complete the apprenticeship for high office, coupled with her obvious ambition, scares me. In some ways she’s working the same angles that Obama did, but playing to a different audience. I commented above that I’m in the Obama-is-Bush-on-steroids camp. I fear that Palin could be worse than Obama to the same degree that Obama is worse than Bush, whose Presidency I view as unsuccessful.

    What does the story of Sarah Palin say about your identity? What are your views about who should hold power? You seem to be afraid of some outcome for the Republic involving Palin, that requires you to “speak out” to “forestall” your conscience. What do you fear?

    Those are searching questions and it’s late. I’m not sure my response was coherent, so I deleted it. Maybe we can resume this another time.

    I could be wrong, of course.

    So could I. In fact, I want to be.

  62. Oblio Says:

    gs, I’m not sold on your Obama analysis. Obama didn’t change the narrative frame, it was changed for him. He benefitted from the work the Democrat/media axis had done to whip up hysteria over the war and corruption. He benefitted from the reluctance of the MSM and his opponents to challenge the first African-American candidate who seemed to have a shot at the Presidency. He benefitted immensely from the Financial Crisis, which delegitimized free market arguments in the minds of many swing voters. Once Palin was on the other ticket, he benefitted from an atmosphere of urban hysteria about sex. (This thread is an echo.) In short, Obama was the beneficiary of the Perfect Storm, an environment full of obsessive anxiety about money, war, race, and sex. (Maybe you are right about the demagogic aspects, or perhaps I take a certain amount of demagoguery in politics for granted.)

    Obama himself was what he always was: a faculty lounge Empty Suit posing with New Left attitudes and multi-culti platitudes. In the electoral atmosphere of 2008, that was good enough to win.

  63. gs Says:

    Oblio, it’s true that Obama found himself in the right places at the right time and took advantage.

    In 2004 Illinois’ incumbent Republican senator chose not to run for reelection. Obama got the Democratic nomination via patronage. A scandal forced his opponent to withdraw. The Democrats put Obama’s teleprompter skills on the national stage at their 2004 convention. By the end of the 2008 primaries Hillary had taken Obama’s measure, but she ignored him until it was too late. McCain had edged into the lead, but lost his composure, and thereby the election IMO, when the financial crisis broke.

    Even so, Obama took risks. Instead of breaking into politics at the bottom as a “community organizer”, he could have gone for a cushy career in academia, nonprofits, or business. He did not disappear into the anonymity of a leftist hack; he survived and climbed, and by hook and crook got into the Senate. When presented with the chance to challenge the 2006 “inevitable nominee”, he took the chance and motivated footsoldiers, consiglieri and techies to run the cyber-roots campaign that won him the nomination and election.

    The country should have required Obama to show us a track record as a reelected IL governor before considering him for the Presidency.

    Like Obama, Palin started in obscurity. Her route to the governorship was tougher than Obama’s to the Senate. Then she was put on the national stage without struggling to that level on her own. Her national takeoff was rockier than Obama’s, but like he she is willing to take risks. She has attracted a cadre of zealous loyalists that make her a presence to be reckoned with.

    The country should require Palin to show us a track record as a reelected AK governor before considering her for the Presidency. Which means, in my book, that her resignation rules her out. (Though after his 1962 tantrum I was sure I’d never ever vote for Nixon…)

    Otoh, on paper Texas Governor George Bush had strong qualifications to move up to the Oval Office, and IMO his Presidency was a failure. Maybe that perceived failure has helped make the voters more willing, in implicit desperation, to consider inexperienced people like Obama and Palin.

    IMO Bush/Rove Republicans, given their own way, would wreck the country more slowly than Obama Democrats are doing. That’s not a reason to get fired up about the GOP. I fear that a switch from Obama to Palin would be jumping from one frying pan into another–or worse.

  64. Oblio Says:

    I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for Henry Cabot Lodge.

    gs, if you remember thinking anything about Richard Nixon in 1962, you must be of a certain age. You seem to have Old Establishment standards for public service. You put a high value on prudence and evince disdain for demagoguery.

    I think you and I would get along, even though I am at least 10 years younger than you are.

  65. Curtis Says:

    gs: You should have stayed a troll. It’s apparent you are something even more annoying.

    gs stands for grandstanding but unfortunately for you, you’re not impressing anyone.

    Try a new moniker: Babble-on.

  66. gs Says:

    Oblio Says:

    I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for Henry Cabot Lodge.

    Heh. Well put.

    Otoh, I hope our situation doesn’t get desperate enough that a former one-term Congressman from the boonies is the best bet.

    gs, if you remember thinking anything about Richard Nixon in 1962, you must be of a certain age.

    That would be late middle age. Late middle age. ;-)

    You seem to have Old Establishment standards for public service.

    snort When I was a refugee child, there was still an echo of the attitude that Negroes, Catholics and Jews weren’t fully American. Now I’m Old Establishment…!?

    You put a high value on prudence and evince disdain for demagoguery.

    In a world that is competitive when it isn’t dangerous, I want a bold President but not a reckless one.

    The people who mentored me, back in the day, had a low tolerance for bullshit. I expect people who talk a big game to back it with their play.

    I think you and I would get along, even though I am at least 10 years younger than you are.

    I think so too. I benefited from our exchange even if no minds were changed. Maybe we’ll meet again.

  67. Oblio Says:

    Sorry, gs, didn’t intend to touch a nerve. OK, not Old Establishment, that’s clear. Based on your response, I would expect that you would have mixed feelings about identifying with Republicans at all, however temporary the association. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you haven’t picked up Old Establishment attitudes through your education or subsequent experiences. What then? If you were a refugee in the 40′s or 50′s, then you almost certainly had some family experience of things of which one should be frightened. This must inform your perceptions to some degree.

  68. gs Says:

    Sorry, gs, didn’t intend to touch a nerve.

    You didn’t but thx for mentioning it.

    Based on your response, I would expect that you would have mixed feelings about identifying with Republicans at all, however temporary the association. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you haven’t picked up Old Establishment attitudes through your education or subsequent experiences.

    I vote on a case by case basis. The traditional Republican message of a free country with a strong defense has always attracted me; the Democrats’ tendency toward utopian discourse has often kindled my skepticism.

  69. Scottie Says:

    The brouhaha over the Palin tatas, reminds me of an joke.

    100 men were polled.

    They were asked whether they preferred

    a) natural boobage

    or

    b) enhanced boobage.

    99 men out of 100 answered “yes” (the 100th man resided in San Francisco).

  70. gs Says:

    Although this thread is over, an afterthought moves me to record another misgiving I developed about Palin: she’s a big spender:

    Spending rose in Palin’s Alaska administrations

    …Republican John McCain said during the last debate that his running mate has “cut the size of government.”

    But Palin didn’t cut the size of government as mayor of Wasilla, and she hasn’t done so as Alaska’s governor, city and state budget records show. Spending in fast-growing Wasilla increased by 55% during her tenure from 1996-2002, records show. In nearly two years as governor, she has presided over a 31% spending hike by a state government that sought earmarks from Washington even as it reaped billions from higher oil prices and Palin-backed tax increases on oil companies.

    Bill McAllister, a governor’s office spokesman in Alaska, said the state lived through painful budget cuts in the 1990s when low oil prices restricted revenue. “There’s an element of catch-up here,” he said.

    Draw your own conclusions, my reader (if any). I’ve drawn mine.

  71. gs Says:

    I’m posting here in order to keep my assessments of Palin in one place.

    At Bill Quick’s rambunctious libertarian Daily Pundit blog, commenter Haverwilde is a Ketchikan AK resident who is not impressed with Palin’s record as governor: see comment #s 3, 8, 13, and 16 over here.

  72. gs Says:

    With Neo’s indulgence, I’ll continue accumulating my new impressions of Palin in this area. Accordingly I’m reposting my comment regarding Palin’s response to the Vanity Fair hit piece:

    An unverifiable, vicious hit piece like the VF article gives Palin a great opportunity to demonstrate her character:

    …impotent, limp, and gutless… (said twice)

    Never mind.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge