Sarah Palin…”Constrained,” But Maybe Not How You Think…

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

Sarah Palin was in New Mexico a few days ago pushing her book out in Roswell a few days ago.  (I have to admit, I find the title “Going Rogue” a bit odd, considering she’s not all that rogue in MY book…shaking off public office to run around the country seems pretty much in vogue…see John Edwards and even Barack Obama, who abandoned the Senate to run for President right quick…and, pols with higher aspirations all write books before their runs these days, don’t they?)

Anyhow, a writer for the Albuquerque Journal came up with a very interesting piece regarding Palin in Saturday’s paper (December 5, 2009). Although it’s behind the subscriber firewall (but try the link below, you might be able to access it) I do want to share some of this, because it really is a serious piece about Palin in that it tries to really figure out WHO she is.

Last year I was dazzled by Palin and didn’t enjoy seeing her trashed anymore than I liked seeing Hillary Clinton trashed. However, I’ve been off the Palin bandwagon for quite awhile now. While I admired her spunk, I always felt a bit uncomfortable with her politics. I really left the train when she quite her job as governor of Alaska.  Frankly, that’s when I saw the “quite and run” thing kicking in, which leaves a sour taste my mouth these days. She doesn’t seem much different than Edwards or Obama on that score.

But this piece by Thomas J. Cole, entitled “The Constrained Vision, Palin-Style” is quite thought provoking.  Cole didn’t attend the book signing Roswell, but he did buy the book and read it…and thought about it.  As he opens his piece, ” I went in search of Sarah Palin this week.” (I’m guessing the “unleashed” Sarah Palin…)

Cole says he wanted to gain a deeper insight into Palin’s views and found it on page 385:

I wanted to know what informs her positions, the ideas that are the building blocks of her politics, the philosophies that would guide her in making the serious decisions required of these serious times.
I found what I was looking for on Page 385.
Palin wrote: “I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen. This world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.”
She then hitches her wagon to the “constrained” political vision as explained by economist and commentator Thomas Sowell in his book “A Conflict of Visions,” first published in 1987.
Politicians with the constrained vision believe that human nature is flawed, that war, poverty and crime, for example, are inevitable and that our flaws cannot be fixed.
Those politicians believe in building institutions that constrain the flaws of human nature and in leaving it to the public to express their interests in free markets.
On the other hand, as Sowell tells it, politicians with the “unconstrained” vision seek to explain our flaws and believe that institutions can cause them. They believe that government can decide what it is in the public’s interest.
“Commonsense Conservatives (that’s what Palin calls herself) deal with human nature as it is with its unavoidable weaknesses and its potential for goodness,” she wrote.
“We don’t trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us — to protect our inalienable rights.”

MMM…so, we’re all “fallen.”  This “constrained” viewpoint makes me shudder. “Constraining the flaws of human nature” makes me think of a lot harsh things…including the Republican Party, which is back to their “purity” testing again these days…Sounds pretty “perfecting” to me.  The language, the word “fallen” makes my mind immediately wander into religious territory, a la Adam and Eve.  Sort of give me the creeps, but maybe that’s just my own bias?

Cole then muses on how this sort of thinking would apply to current issues:

Let’s take the health care debate.
Politicians with the constrained vision believe that if Americans wanted more affordable health care, they would get it by expressing that interest in the marketplace.
Politicians with the unconstrained vision believe the public interest lies in reducing health care costs, having more Americans covered and not forcing people into bankruptcy because of medical bills.
On the issue of the economy, there would be no more Chrysler or General Motors under the constrained political vision. Through the marketplace, the public had decided it wasn’t in its interest to save the companies and their tens of thousands of jobs.
Politicians with the constrained vision don’t believe in addressing the abuses on Wall Street that led to our financial crisis or in stemming the tide of home foreclosures.
On the evening of Palin’s book signing in Roswell, President Obama addressed the nation on his plan for Afghanistan.
Palin wrote on her Facebook page that evening that she supported Obama’s action, although she wanted him to commit more troops.
Her position wasn’t surprising, given that politicians with the constrained vision believe making war is unavoidable and rational because that’s just what countries do.

This article is an interesting jumping off point from which to examine Palin’s views.  For liberals who seem to have jumped on her bandwagon, it should give pause.

Beyond the folksy demeanor and “common sense” image, there ARE ideas.  And these ideas must be scrutinized just like those of any politician. It’s a mixed bag, of course.

I probably agree with about 10% of the “constrained” views discussed in the above quote.  But most of it…the blind faith to “the marketplace” (abuses and all) and the “war thing”–well, that just seems to be the same old Republican bit that I really can’t stomach.

So, “Going Rogue” sounds catchy, but it rings as false as “Hope and Change” to me…Lots of things to think about…

The Past Week: January 18-24, 2009 (Condi Rice Getting Booked; Pat Paulsen, We Need You!; VOA and wwiTV.com; Questions)

Well, we’re already seeing the arrogance of Obama and Pelosi and some signs of life from the New York governor as Caroline Kennedy fades from the scene of diversion…

***

As you’ve probably heard, Condi Rice has signed on with the William Morris Agency…here is her page at the WMA site:

			Condoleezza Rice

<!– –> <!– –> <!– –> <!– –>		full bio

	Copyright © 2009 William Morris Agency. All rights reserved. WMA

OK,  she JUST signed on, so there’s nothing there now as  I write this…but she already is listed in the roster of people speaking on “Domestic and Global Issues.”

She’s sharing the roster with the likes of Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Larry King, Diane Dimond, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Winnie Mandela, Ed Koch, Joe Scarborough, James Cramer, Rita Crosby, Gen. Claudia Kennedy and George Lakoff.  Oh, and Prince Edward of Essex.  And there are many more in the club…

Condi is also listed on the “Women’s Issues” roster (and so is Jennifer Lopez!).  My old chum Peggy Noonan is with a whole crew of people to ignore over on the “Mass Communications” roster.

According to Reuters, Condi won’t be going on shows as a policy analyst, but is going to concentrate on “philanthropic efforts involving classical music and college educations for disadvantaged students, as well as initiatives to help U.S. children become global citizens.” And, she reportedly is negoatiating a book deal, which will possibly include a memoir of the Bush years.

Wonder if she’ll include the August memo prior to 911, you know, the one about planes, buildings, etc. etc.

***

I see the pilot of the jet that ditched into the Hudson has finally been released to the public by investigators.  One wonders about the delay…

***

I was watching the show “Make ‘Em Laugh: The Funny Business of America” on PBS last night and really was caught up in the segments on Lenny Bruce and the censorship… and the Smothers Brothers and the censorship…and George Carlin and the censorship. In the middle of all this, the name of Pat Paulsen comes up. Remember Pat Paulsen and his run for President??

Well…his son carries on….Check out the website “Pat Paulsen for President“…

Looks like Pat’s son, Monty Paulsen, is gearing up for a 2012 run for the White House. Here he hits the campaign trail to find the pulse of American voters.  (video follows)

According to Tommy Smothers (Tommy Smothers Says Paulsen Saved the Show):

It’s debatable who actually urged Paulsen to run for commander in chief of the free world starting in 1968 through 1996, Smothers said.

“It could have come from a whole bunch of people,” he said. “But his ‘68 run was one of the best satirical things ever done in politics.”

[Trivia from IMBD: In 1968 Paulsen first ran for President of the United States under the Straight Talking American Government (STAG) Party, first as a “gag” candidate, then apparently for real. Some critics claim that he stole votes from Hubert H. Humphrey and caused Richard Nixon to be elected (in the televised election returns of that year, he was referred to as a “minor party candidate”). Until his death, he ran as a perennial write-in candidate. His last campaign slogan was “Send Pat Paulsen to the White House! He has to sleep somewhere!”…His last running mate in 1996 was Tiny Tim.]

In the article, Smothers opines that the McCain-Obama race could have used Paulsen added to the mix….I agree!!

Paulsen delivered a series of “Editorials” as V.P. while on the Smothers Brothers Show and the texts are preserved on the web. Here is an excerpt that was shown on the PBS special. It’s on the subject of the draft:

Are Our Draft Laws Unfair?

October 29, 1967

A good many people feel our present draft laws are unjust. These people are called soldiers…Now the crux of the criticism is based on the premise that an ineptitude without gross regress tends to efficiate and gorge masical…and frankly, we find this a bit cloudy.

Let’s take this step by step…When we talk about the draft, we are talking about a law duly enacted by Congress, in which men should be drafted first…women second…and Congressmen last. And what are the arguments against the draft? We hear that it is unfair, immoral…discourages young men from studying, ruins their careers, and their lives…picky…picky…picky.

MORE

Paulsen was awarded a Comedy Legends Award posthumously in September 2008 (he died of cancer in 1997). Will Durst remembers:

“I remember Pat when he first announced he was running for president on ‘The Smothers Brothers Show’ in 1968. He did these double-talk speeches that were so hysterical because he had that look of a ’60s-era politician,” Durst said. “It was hysterical. That was satire.”

One of his choice quotes:

Assuming either the Left Wing or the Right Wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles.
Pat Paulsen

***

Tired of the media? Well, you can get your propaganda directly from the new and improved Voice of America site…you can listen to what’s being piped into Afghanistan, for example, and many other places in many languages.

The Confluence had a great piece up yesterday on the subject of the status of women in Afghanistan, which never seems to improve.  Do check out  Saturday: A little thing for the girls.

***

If you want to see television from Afghanistan, check out World Wide Internet TeleVision from the Netherlands at  wwiTV.com.  This site has the most incredible collection of foreign and U.S. TV that can be viewed via the web that I have ever seen.  I love the CCTV from China. Check out the English feed.  Today I learned that China is hoping to boost its economy by promoting breakfast–Chinese-style breakfast, not American fast food offerings.  One man said that the state-run restaurant breakfasts were very good and one woman said that for only 3 yuan…well, it’s a bargain!  Sure looked great to me…lots of food and who can beat that price?? (But first I’d check for melamine…)

***

I leave you with two questions:

Why am I suddenly getting emails again from the JRE Grassroots group? In case you don’t remember, this was a thing put together by John Edwards.  Well, according to the emails, they want to figure out what to do so they are contacting people on their email list for suggestions.  My suggestion is that they ask John Edwards if HE has any idea on the subject…

And, who would be looking at this little blog at about midnight MT from Andrews Air Force Base (the base the Presidents all fly from)?

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland landed on https://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/obama-a-lo… 23:45:02 — 4 minutes ago

Maybe they’ll come back for a visit again?

THE PAST WEEK

*By everyone at IA–Kenosha Marge, Grail Guardian, American Lassie, Leslie Chicago Correspondent, and IA-GRL

**By IA-GRL, Leslie Chicago Correspondent, & Kenosha Marge

I’ve Been Tagged…So Here Are Six Things About Me….

Obama’s Entitlement “Reform”– the Social Security-Medicare Nexus and Health Freedom

T.A.R.P, Recovery Plan, Term Limits Action…All Obscured Under the Cover of Media Hoopla

Come and Get it! “Idiot Wings” Served Up by Republicans & Democrats…(Update 1X: Lyrics from Stealers Wheel)

*Welcome to…THE IA INAUGURATION DAY SAFE-ZONE!

**Throwing Things as We Think of Other Historic Events on January 20th We Don’t Plan to Celebrate (A Joint Post by IA-GRL, Chicago Correspondent Leslie, and Kenosha Marge)

REMINDER: Inauguration Day is an OBAMA-FREE SAFE-ZONE Here at IA!

The Past Week: January 11-17, 2009 (Al Jazeera Hooks up with PBS; House vs. Senate/Obama and Bailout Oversight; “Everyman” Biden; Non-GMO Verification Project; “The Prisoner” is Free; Extra Anatomical Tube Bypass

FLASHBACK: Democratic Messages–Does Obama Cut It? (With an Aside about Obama’s Organizing & Connection to One of the ’04 Candidates)

Back when I was contributing to that OTHER SITE, I wrote this piece about what the Democratic message in 2004 might be…or should be.  I looked back to 1992 to the Clinton-Gore campaign, then brought the reader back to 2003 and looked at the messages being formed by the leading candidates at the time (John Kerry hadn’t yet declared.)  James Carville was discussing the type of candidate that was needed to renew the concept of “generational responsiblity,” which he called the “big issue” for Democrats in 2004.  And who seemed to articulate this “big issue” most clearly during the primary season? Former Senator and Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun.

Braun, who was from Chicago, Illinois and who became the first black woman elected to the Senate, was fairly controversial (with campaign funds coming under scrutiny and a trip to NIgeria where she met with the dictator in charge).  She was defeated in her 1998 re-election bid but in 2003-2004 when she ran for President, her message about “generational promise” was the most clearly articulated. (She dropped out of the race 4 days before the Iowa caucuses and supported Howard Dean.)

What’s interesting is that Barack Obama was involved in getting her elected to the Senate through his work with Project Vote.  At the time he was popular for his “integrity” and “honesty” and was perceived as “not at all comfortable with the political game of getting and staying elected, of raising money in backroom deals and manipulating an electable image”  Wow, have times changed! (See “HINDSIGHT” below for more on Braun and also a link to a 1995 article on the activities of Barack Obama at that time.)

So, give this blast from the past a read and think about the shift in the Democratic message since 1992.  The idea of passing on a better future for the next generation is one that I’m not seeing much of this time around. Will Obama’s flirtation with some rather conservative ideas really serve the next generations well?? At the same time,  we’ve also seen a sharp split being created by the Obama campaign–old vs. young.  And what the older generation has done is getting short shrift. A break is being created, not a true bridging of the generations.  A whole lot of older folks have been thrown under the bus.

Oh, but in his acceptance speech, Obama does give us a line, as vague as ever…

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story — of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart — that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

Does it meet James Carville’s thoughts on the type of candidate Democrats need?  It seems incomplete to me…pursuing dreams is one thing, but having a better lfe than the previous generation is another. See below and and judge for yourself…

The “Meaning” of America

~~Posted by kenoshaMarge

The “Meaning” of America

Presented As Nothing But My Opinion

The meaning that I am talking about is the mean-spiritedness that is rampant in the United States and perhaps around the world for all I know. I can only speak of what I know and see. I am not well educated enough to write some scholarly dissertation about it. I articulate how it looks from my perspective. It’s
just my opinion folks and if it doesn’t jibe with yours I accept beforehand that I should be boiled in oil or stood against a wall and shot.

No day, no hour, hell no minute goes by that there isn’t some nasty little twit on television, radio or on some blog tearing into someone for some real or imagined offense. The pile on commences and before long some clumsily expressed thought has a metamorphosis into full-blown conflagration.”How dare he/she say that,” the pundidiots and blogsnots thunder; while conveniently ignoring that he/she didn’t say thatt all.

Television on Friday the 8th of August 2008 is a prime time example of the lunacy perpetrated upon us. Cable “news” was in full-blown hyperventilation over the John Edwards affair. Oh the horror of it all. Hour after hour CNN and FOX wasted our time with this nonsense. Tell what happened and move on. We don’t
need nor want to know what every pinhead in teevee land thinks about another story about another politician that couldn’t keep his pants zipped. Not like he’s an endangered species.

MSNBC may have done the same but since I never watch their sleazy channel I cannot honestly attest that they did. Good heavens right there I am more of a journalist than anyone on their payroll. I don’t presume to report without facts. Never get the big bucks that way Marge.

Maybe it’s just that we love to be pissed off. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the blogosphere. Safely ensconced behind our keyboards we can venture forth to do battle with those that we find unworthy.  All too often that simply means those with whom we disagree. Lest I get smacked down because “you” don’t do that, let me say, if the shoe doesn’t fit…

It seems to me that there is a tone to our interaction that is in many instances just plain nasty.  I am not one of those sweet little old ladies that think we should all get along. I am not, in fact, a sweet anything. I can swap expletives with the best and them and will continue to do so in the future. I simply try to find a balance and try not to head out with all my artillery blazing to shoot down a trifle.

I do not want to play nice with bigots, liars and ignoramuses. I can get mean, nasty, insulting when confronted with idiocy. Mostly, why bother? I have better things to do with my time.

Trolls are vermin that should be eradicated whenever possible and ignored when not. Fact, mean-spiritedness or both?

Converse with an Obama supporter? Why? They love him; I loathe him, what conversation? Obama supporters like to frequent Obama Loathing blogs to hijack a conversation or insist on going over arguments hashed, rehashed and long decided by both sides. Insults are traded, they’ve hijacked a post and they won.

I wish we could get from the blogosphere what we need to get from our dysfunctional media. Facts. Just facts. For the most part information is so well hidden that most of us have to search out our facts like a damn snipe hunt.

And pieces like this? My opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.

Pundidiots like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Cafferty, Blitzer, O’Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, Martin, Limbaugh, Rhodes and others of their ilk that infest our airwaves should never be allowed to get away with pulling words outa their ass and passing them off as facts. A big bold disclaimer should flash across out screen or be repeated hourly on radio wherever these pundidiots are free to roam. “THIS IS THE UNBRIDLED OPINION OF AN OVERPAID IDIOT.” Or is it too mean-spirited? Is my pot meeting my kettle?

Don’t Let the Edwards Story Let This Get By You…Next Week, “The Atlantic” is Possibly Publishing “Leaked Clinton Campaign Memos” on the Internet (Updated 3X)

OK, I’m so disgusted by John Edwards that I can’t express it strongly enough.  I was an Edwards supporter originally…another one goes down the tubes…Enough said.  Onward with this:

The Atlantic is supposed to be publishing on the internet “leaked” memos from the Clinton campaign next week. Josh Green is the reporter. Green is a SENIOR EDITOR at The Atlantic.  According to Limbaugh, who broke this today, there are a couple of hundred of them, and about 150 are going to be released.  Some are written by Mark Penn and other people in the campaign.

Some of the quotes from them include remarks about Obama’s “unelectability” and a few others that I can’t recall at the moment.

I will admit that I heard this on Limbaugh, but quite by accident, since I never tune into him willingly. But I don’t doubt it. The Atlantic is a big enough publication that unfounded rumors about what they were doing wouldn’t go down very well. Limbaugh said he got the info from an insider. We know it’s a center-right publication. On this matter, I am inclined to believe him.

Now, the big question is:  WHO LEAKED THESE MEMOS if this is all true?? My mother, who listens to Limbaugh regularly, has told me that he has been saying that the Clinton team has a plan in place.  He speculated today that it was the Clinton camp that leaked these memos.

Frankly, when he first said they were going to be published next week, MY FIRST REACTION was that it may very well have been the Clinton camp.  When Limbaugh read the purported quotations, which were all negative about Obama, I thought it sounded like even more of a possibility.  They were the sort of comments that most people would not find all that shocking, considering how the Obama team has been screwing up lately.  They sounded like logical conclusions reached by people who could see a train wreck coming.

(UPDATE–Hat tip to SUGAR for reminding me of another quote…”The only person Obama could beat is Attila the Hun”!!!)

My other reaction was “Why not release them all? Why are some being held back?”  Maybe we’ll be figure that out once the released memos come out, maybe not.

I am simply offering this info as food for thought. I know nothing else about this leak, other than what I heard today.  We’ll have to see what comes down the pike next week.

As for the Edwards story…who knows if the Obama camp originally floated it to get Edwards out of the primary race?  Whoever was behind it may never be known. It’s just really disgusting that it turned out to be true. My heart goes out to Elizabeth and the kids.  Their oldest daughter must be as devastated as her mother must be. She listened to him talk about morals and trust throughout the primary season. It is a very, very sad situation all around.

What an AWFUL political season this has been…

UPDATE 3

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic: announcement on August 8, 2008 about the upcoming memo release…

UPDATE 2

I did hear right the first time. He did tell Elizabeth about the affair back in 2006. Sigh.  And she listened to him talk about morals and trust during the campaign.  Not my business about their relationship.  But, I don’t know….I just don’t know anymore…

UPDATE

I was under the impression that Elizabeth had known about this in 2006.  I heard Hannity reading the story as it broke and I thought he said “the family knew about it in 2006.”  I can’t verify this, so I’ve deleted the mention of Elizabeth knowing about it then…