A Palin Hating Conservative

Heather Mac Donald versus Laura Ingraham

It is sad. Really really sad that a conservative would believe that losing this election could have a long term benefit to conservatism. Anyone who believes that is either hopelessly naive to what the next 2 years may hold, or cares more about ideology than country. The reason that conservatives must win this election is that the threat of a depression is real, and conservatives have the right ideology to pull America through it as painlessly as possible. Liberals, on the other hand in an attempt to spread the wealth, will spread the poverty instead.

Many of these Sarah Palin hating conservatives are well off rich fools who are essentially insulated from the hard times that they are willing to consign many Americans to. And, they are doing it to advance liberal policy positions.

Sarah Palin Hatred

Have you noticed that the Sarah Palin is not qualified to be VP story rarely gets mentioned anymore? And, when it is mentioned it is only brought up by conservatives. It used to irritate me when a liberal would invariably say that liberals are smarter than conservatives. The next time I hear that, I am going to retort "I do not believe that is true, but I will acknowledge that liberals are smarter than Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, David Frum and David Brooks".

Rich Lowry says Christopher Buckley is not only a fool but a liar as well (or at least that is what I take from his comments).

Sarah on ACORN

Good for Sarah:

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin suggested Tuesday that Barack Obama shares responsibility for recent reports of voter fraud conducted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Republicans need to learn that if they want the press to fairly cover some issues they have to force them to do it by addressing those issues themselves.

Drinking beer is patriotic

David Post at the Volokh conspiracy owes Sarah Palin an apology for writing the following post:

...it is really irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting [for Sarah Palin] to say that it's unpatriotic [to suggest that people pay higher taxes].

Sarah Palin never said that it is unpatriotic. Here is Sarah Palin's comment that has David Post (and Thomas Friedman) upset:

Now you [Biden] said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.

Now as a hypothetical, assume that I say "drinking beer is the patriotic thing to do". If someone responds, "that's not patriotic". Are they calling drinking beer unpatriotic, or are they pointing out that I have a bizarre definition of patriotism? Sarah Palin was right and her detractors owe her an apology.

Obama's impressive team

Danny Shays quotes David Brooks as saying:

...although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he was is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party." "He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."

Why would any conservative be impressed by this? As an analogy, if you wanted to, you could assemble the 2008 Olympic Redeem Team as your team, but you shouldn't expect to win the MLB World Series with that team. Similarly, why would David Brooks be impressed with Obama's ability to assemble a team that he feels is intellectual, but ideologically wrong on issue after issue? If his team was so impressive, shouldn't David Brooks feel that they are ideologically right on issue after issue? The two following possibilities exist:

• Obama's team is ideologically right, and David Brooks lacks the intellectual insight to understand why his ideological thinking is flawed.
• David Brooks is ideologically right, and Obama's team lacks the intellectual insight to understand why their ideological thinking is flawed.

If David Brooks is ideologically right, why is he impressed with the Obama's team inability to understand the flaws in their ideological thinking? I presume that David Brooks is convinced that he is ideologically right, so there is no point in asking the converse. Furthermore, why is David Brooks impressed rather than horrified by Obama's ability to assemble such an impressive staff? Isn't it logical to assume that Obama's impressive staff means that Obama is going to be spectacularly successful at advancing "flawed" ideological ideas and policies? Why would any conservative be comforted by that thought?

Until David Brooks can offer a coherent response to explain his fondness for the team Obama in spite of the ideological threat they pose, I am going to view David Brooks and not Sarah Palin as the "fatal cancer to the Republican party".

Anti-"Elitist" and proud

Dr Joan Bushell writes:

[Sam] Harris had some wonderful commentary in Newsweek on the Republican VP candidate. Of particular worth is the following comment regarding "elitism" in US politics:
Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth--in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

Generally, the American people do not reject "elites" because they are intelligent or well educated.

Wise people are foolish if they cannot adapt to foolish people. --Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

A wise man is a man who knows how little he knows. --Socrates.

Instead, the American people reject "elites" because they are fools who have not learned to adapt nor recognize how little they know. I have additional thoughts on the subject here.