Comments Posted By Morgan K Freeberg
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments

IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?

I didn’t know there was a ‘Moran’ crowd.

It is true that you Palin-haters are being outnumbered here somewhere in the neighborhood of three-to-one; and it is true that this is doing some damage to the "but she can't win because nobody will vote for her" argument. Especially in view of the fact that my question "she'll draw fewer votes than who, exactly?" remains unanswered.

But the notion that the Moranistas are timid prairie dogs quivering in apprehension from the slings and arrows of us rabid wild-eyed Palinistas, is something that's been a tad bit overstated here. We're all laboring toward a common goal here, and the conduct has been gallant on both sides. Well, except for the ritual insults your side has for the former Governor -- apart from that.

But yeah, she's a polarizing figure. In spite of the fact she hasn't actually excluded any people...only policies. Seventy-four percent of Republicans approve of her. The democrats call her a moron. More to the point, the democrats are visibly anxious to call her a moron.

That's what a successful Republican contender looks like. Deny it all you want, but those are the tell-tale signs.

Comment Posted By Morgan K Freeberg On 16.11.2009 @ 20:14

It's telling that so much importance is being placed on the Couric interview.

If the question is whether or not it's possible for a public figure to bounce back from a bad interview, that discussion is over before it's started. Obama's "interview" with Joe The Plumber was downright wretched. Holy Man blew off His foot right at His neck. But He seemed to recover from that just fine.

No, it's ego that's deciding this one. Once you've said "Oh yes, Katie, you tore her apart, she must be a dummy" it's tough to come back from that and admit you judged something too recklessly. So I'll not be looking to the Moran crowd to admit their mistake here, any sooner than I'll look to the MoveOn crowd to admit electing Obama was a mistake.

The central question still beckons: Is Palin an inferior candidate? Well it's a relative concept, if "we" want to win, right? So inferior to who?

We have a George S. Patton situation here, folks. We have many generals fighting hard against the enemy, but the enemy only truly fears one among those generals. She happens to be a girl. Deal with it.

Comment Posted By Morgan K Freeberg On 16.11.2009 @ 16:51

funny man,

I'm just citing Obama as an example. Clearly, the notion that "intellectual" has undergone this makeover is something uncomfortable for you, because you obviously want to contest it but your tactic is to simply sidestep the question.

In the context the word is being used here, it really doesn't have quite so much to do with a personal skill set, aptitude or attribute, but rather with an appeal. Obama becomes relevant, because not only is He our current President but he's way out in front of the pack in terms of drawing people to Him through this appeal. He is the unquestioned champion at this...

And yet do you really think He has superior intellectual acumen, as it has been classically defined.

There needs to be a differentiation between "intellectual" as a descriptor to one's individual strengths or lack thereof, versus "intellectual" as an illusion, a way of drawing in crowds. The distinction is important. If that does some damage to the point Rick is trying to make, then so be it.

But speaking for myself, I'm not particularly drawn to support lowbrows or knuckledraggers. I am, however, fatigued with the nonsensical policy decisions that come from these oh-so-smart people. The discussion here has to do with which candidate is likely to win; and in this fatigue, I'm pretty far from alone.

Comment Posted By Morgan K Freeberg On 16.11.2009 @ 12:28

Liberty60, let's take these one at a time.

I agree with Rick’s assessment about her anti-intellectual attitudes...

So do I. A zillion and one percent. Trouble is, that word you two are using, "intellectual"; it needs inspection. It does not mean at the end of 2009 what it meant at the end of 2001. It has been re-defined.

An "intellectual" possesses the sophistication to understand that global warming is caused by humans and action is necessary RIGHT NOW.

An "intellectual" is sufficiently sophisticated to understand that Saddam Hussein was a harmless lovable teddy bear.

An "intellectual" can immediately see that there was no action necessary with regard to Nidal Hasan, and he could go about his business.

An "intellectual" knows that terrorism is nothing but a "nuisance." Also, that although all the data are in on Afghanistan, nobody should expect a decision this week, or this month, or this year, because it's "important to get it right." And that it is somehow a terrible idea to "drill baby drill" because of caribou or harp seals or whatever.

See the pattern? Dangerous things are safe. Safe things are dangerous. Complicated things are simple. Simple things are complicated. "Intellectual" has become nothing more than a buzz-word that justifies abrogating a thinker of the necessary thoughts...during Step One, or even before that, of every important decision that comes along.

They know who the target of this resentment is, even if Sarah doesn’t use the word “macaca”.

If I want to see hatred, bigotry and raw resentment, I'm making a bee-line toward the hard left with their intolerance of Israel, their continued snarking at entire geographical regions (Deep South, Texas, Alaska, et al) and their continued deployment of the tried-and-true "accuse the accuser" defense every time they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

We have a wonderful "intellectual" in charge right now. His position is that when the country's all out of money, what we have to do is spend like crazy.

A dottie old aunt with a midwestern accent really isn't looking half bad. Especially when you compare it to the prospect of watching Rudy or Mitt get creamed yet one more time three years from now.

Comment Posted By Morgan K Freeberg On 16.11.2009 @ 12:11

So that's it then. Katie and Charlie put on a show, and she's out. If those two all by themselves make up the Electoral College that really matters, then we deserve eight years of Obama.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall the Constitution mentioning them.

Comment Posted By Morgan K Freeberg On 16.11.2009 @ 11:25


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page