CofC Professor Takes On Palin in New Book
College of Charleston communications professor Chris Lamb looks at why a lot of Conservatives are running away from Sarah Palin in his new book "The Sound and Fury of Sarah Palin"
To College of Charleston communications professor and author Chris Lamb, Sarah Palin is worse than crab grass.
Lamb's new book "The Sound and Fury of Sarah Palin" takes a look at the conservative response to Palin since she burst onto the national stage as John McCain's running mate in 2008.
"I'm trying to approach Sarah Palin, not as one of her devote followers, and not as a liberal who hates everything about her, but as a moderate who hates everything about her," Lamb said.
"I'm trying to take the point of view of a conservative looking at Sarah Palin, and that the idea is that she represents, not a danger toward the United States as we tend to know it, but as a danger toward Conservatism."
Throughout the book Lamb examines Palin's own writings, interviews she has given and things people, mostly conservatives, have written about her. The book also includes 30 editorial cartoons penned by 10 Pulitzer Award-winning cartoonists.
Lamb says Palin is the latest in a long line of American demagogues, the successor to Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950s and the Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s.
"I judge her based on her writings, and her interviews, and her speeches," Lamb said. "And I don't think there's any fairer way to judge someone."
He said the Republican Party needs to look to the example of William F. Buckley and reject the extreme right, again.
"There's a quote from William F. Buckley, who founded modern conservatism," Lamb said. "He used to say that 'All my life I've tried to separate the right from the kooks.' And I think Palin's greatest contribution has been that all the kooks have lined up behind her, and sort of separated the best part of conservatism from the kooks."
Buckley was able to revive a floundering Republican Party in the 1960s by calling on its leadership to reject the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, Lamb said. He said the current GOP needs to reject Palin and her followers if it wants to remain relevant.
"When we accept demagoguery into our homes, we're never the same again," Lamb said. "These people don't stand for freedom, and they don't stand for democracy, and they don't stand for any of the values that being American means, regardless of whether they're conservative or liberal. They stand for themselves, and they are for censorship, and they're for government taking over our lives."
Lamb concedes that for a demagogue to have an impact on a society there has to be an existing undercurrent of what he calls hysteria for that person to exploit.
"I just take someone like that, I guess it's kind of like crab grass or something like that, if you don't put the stuff on them the crab grass will keep growing, and I just think she's, actually she's worse than crab grass," Lamb said. "McCain would not have brought that on. And I just think it was a lot of things. It was the idea that the economy fell apart, it was the idea of Obama, a black man running for president, I think brought out some of the deep-seated feelings, but I think she coalesced that mob and brought them together. I'm not sure anyone else could have created this hysteria that she did."
Though he identifies himself as a left-leaning moderate, Lamb said many of his conservative friends with which he discusses politics have declared their own independence from the Republican Party largely due to disappointment with the George W. Bush Presidency and the growing anti-intellectualism of the GOP that he said came to the fore with Palin's emergence.
Lamb says Palin had a direct influence the way this year's Republican Presidential Primary contests have played out.
"I think the chaos of the Republican Primaries, this absolute dysfunction of the Republican Primaries, this food fight, whatever metaphors you want to use are a direct result of Sarah Palin," he said. "I'm not sure there would have been a Tea Party without Sarah Palin. This idea somehow that screaming awful things and ruining lives and attacking people for being Muslims when it's clearly they're not, and then sicking us on the Muslims, that's Sarah Palin.
"I just think that this madness is a direct result of what Palin brought to the campaign trail in 2008," he continued. "What you have with Palin is this idea of accusing Obama of being unpatriotic and yet you have Palin embracing the Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the Union, you have all these incredible contradictions, and she doesn't seem to make any attempt to reconcile this."
Lamb's book is an alarm bell for the GOP, he said, to expel the "kooks" from its midst.
"Just as William F. Buckley was able to take the Republican Party, which was in absolute turmoil during the 60s, and it had all the McCarthites and all the John Birchites, and all these random cast of kooks, and what Buckley did was, in a famous column he called for the party to reject the founder of the John Birch Society, and to reject extremists," Lamb said. "And what Buckley did by doing that was to basically eradicate the crab grass. He was able to kill off all this sort of evil that had paralyzed the party, and in doing so he was able to create a party that elected Ronald Reagan twice.
"Reagan would not have been elected if the party had continued in the direction they were going."
He said if the party fails to purge itself again it will likely lose, and lose badly, in November, which may not be a bad thing for the party long-term.
"I think a lot of people in the Republican Party, a lot of conservatives are real anxious about the Tea Party," he said. "While it seemed like a great idea when it got them elected, I think the longer they're around them, I think they realize how dangerous they are. So I think the best thing for the Republican Party would be for them to suffer a tremendous loss in November, at which point the leaders of the party will be shaken and they can realize what caused this disaster and chase off the far right and rebuild the party."
"I think the Republicans can save themselves, whether they want to or not, I don't know."
Lamb's book is available on Amazon.com, through FrontLine Press and at soundandfuryofsp.com.
Letscheck
6:20 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
Just another dude who wants to make money by using Palin's name to get book sales.
There goes his reputation down the toilet.
Jeff Davis
9:41 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
I agree 100% and further I agree with Stark Zwilling below ... Lamb is obviously extremely liberal, not a moderate as he professes (probably just to sell his book!!)
The bigger issue is these are the people teaching our children in the secondary and higher educational institutions. That is the real scary scenario ... not the Sarah Palin fans.
reg
12:11 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Oh, the trolls, the trolls, the trolls. They pillage this site on this article - signing up here w/ anonymous names to leave their one comment, assuming everyone else will not be able to see that they just came to this site to counterattack using false information.
Stark Zwillig
8:06 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
The tone of his Lamb's comments revealed that he was extremely left leaning from the outset. While I agree with the general proposition that the "Sarah Palin direction" is not exactly where the party ought to be going, Lamb himself is a worse alternative. He is basically a Liberal (or perhaps a RINO) making an argument that the Conservative movement ought to become more Liberal, by citing a representative of Conservatism that is less than ideal for reasons other than her fundamental positions. The Government ought to get out of our lives? What PARTICULAR position does Palin assume involving government "in our lives" that differentiates her from Buckley? Can I assume that because that is frequently used as code for Same Sex Marriage advocacy that this is what you mean to refer to? But then you must know that Buckley was an opponent of it. Do you think that Reagan or any other classical conservative icon would have identified with this notion? Forget about either of them, what about a JFK? The Left continually moves further left and then looks over and wonders why the right is so far right. But that is not the entire narrative, because as the left does this, the tone and approach in some precincts on the right become a less than ideal. That is the problem with Palin, tone and approach, not her substance. We need representatives of Conservatism with a more engaging tone, and a more thoughtful and intelligent (not necessarily "intellectual") approach.
Gene Carr
1:01 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
In fact, as Governor, Sarah Palin vetoed attempts by the Alaskan legislature to rescind the acquired rights of Gay couples in Alaskan State employ.
As a matter of interest, what 'more engaging tone' and 'more thoughtful and intelligent' approcah have you in mind--that of George W Bush? John McCain? Bob Dole? Or is it David Brooks? George Will? David Frum? Don't make me laugh!
RyanH
8:22 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
I definitely agree that "We need representatives of Conservatism with a more engaging tone, and a more thoughtful and intelligent (not necessarily "intellectual") approach" because currently, most of what we're seeing from Conservative representatives right now is hysteria, alarmism, and extremism. The Conservatives with engaging tones--Huntsman, Graham, Snowe, Lugar, Specter--are being regularly outshouted and marginalized in favor of divisive radicalism.
Jeff Davis
9:32 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
RyanH, although you are correct as well, I think there is so much "hysteria, alarmism, and extremism" coming out of Conservative representatives right now because we are in rather dire straits. Yes, Obama inherited a tough situation, but he has only made it worse and now is professing that we need to "double down" on his policies. From the far rights perspective, if this doesn't get fixed now and we have 4 more years of this, I think they feel we as a country are "doomed" (as I hear that word a lot!!). Frankly I am a scared of the prospects as well and it has nothing to do with calls from the extreme right ... its first had experience watching what is going on in "the real world". Anyhow, Romney as a person experienced crossing the aisle and a bit more moderate will be their nominee, which in the end is the right decision. I feel the far rights calls for more extremism are generally screams for attention to the dire straits we currently find ourselves - kind of trying to create a "wake-up call". But, if given the option of an "extreme left USA" (not just Obama, but the extreme left MSNBC crowd) or an "extreme right USA" (not Romney, but the real extremist) ... which would you pick? Its an interesting question to ponder. Heck, maybe Ron Paul is right. ;-)
Gene Carr
12:55 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
None of the people you mention are genuine conservatives. They are simplly a 'Right' version of Progressivism to Obama's 'Left' version of conservatism.
Chris Jefferson
11:21 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
The worst thing the GOP can do is listen to liberals who want Obama reelected.
Sarah Palin is no more like Joe McCarthy than Barack Obama is like Ronald Reagan. However, liberals have been in power for three years now, and Palin and other Movement Conservatives are calling them out on their failures of governance and corruption in power. Palin was famous for fighting corruption in Alaska and took that fight nationally (she made "crony capitalism" a household word, and one of the reasons she didn't run is that the crony capitalists behind the Romney Campaign were going to Goldwater her had she run this time).
Liberals complain when they are called out on the poverty of their ideas and the increasing bankruptcy of their Brezhnevite Social Model. Sarah Palin did not double the national debt since Bush left office, Obama did. A Michigan rating agency just lowered the credit of the U.S. Government from AA+ to AA, with a negative outlook. Yet an out of office former Alaska Governor is a threat to our politics. And, oh by the way, Standard and Poors rated Alaska State Bonds at AAa, and in its commentary largely credited Palin's administration, the ACES tax regime that she passed, the pension reform in Alaska that was passed during her term, and the forward funding of education that was passed in her term, with the relatively sunny outlook for Alaska's governance.
Professor Lamb is entitled to his own opionions, but not his own facts.
reg
12:08 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
tsk, tsk, tsk - you can always spot a desperate troll when he starts making false claims and misdirections and finger-pointing.
FACT: our national debt doubled under Bush. Under Obama, falsehood fascists are trying to redefine national debt, and are now including assets as debt (like, our Social Security reserves - $3.1 billion being held in assets that they now claim as debt), including personal debt (like the president is responsible for your mortgage and car loan).
FACT: our credit rating was lowered because of the House Republicans delay of the national budget. Go ask the agency - they'll tell you that themselves.
FACT: S&P did not in any way credit Palin for its AAA rating. In fact, it credits the 13 FYB created by the new governor, and doesn't mention ACES or state pension at all. Steady oil prices are the reason. http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/press-room/full-press-release.html?pr=6002 http://www.bondsonline.com/Todays_Market/Credit_Rating_News_.php?DA=view&RID=22288
FACT: You don't know jack about the Brezhnevite programs; your mention of it alone reveals your trollness, "Chris." Funny how republicans keep promoting Marxist Economics, then try to associate others with soviet leaders.
FACT: Palin is not in any way famous for battling corruption; don't know where you get that. SHe's only famous for being a fund-abusing and skipping-town governor.
Gene Carr
12:50 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
If Sarah Palin was anything like as Lamb has described, how come that the Democrats in the Alaskan legislature didn't notice it. During her first period as Governor, from January 2007 to the end of the Legislative session in April 2008 she sought and received the support of a majority of the opposition Democrats in the legislature--in one case unanimous support.
If Lamb has reall read what Palin had written, he would know that she was an admirer of Buckley. He would also know that there is no way that she wanted Government controlling lives--she vetoed attaempts by the Alaskan legislature to rescind the acquired rights of Gay couples in Alaska. Also, he would know that once when asked on a ropeline whether a Muslim could aspire to be President, she answered directly that 'there is no religious test in the Consitution'. Also someone correct me if I am wrong but in 2010 palin declined to attend CEPAC because the John Birch society was represented.
Lamb is 'truth challenged'. His book belongs in the same sewer as those of Geoffrey Dunn and Joe McGuinness.
reg
12:19 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Gene, you're well-known across the internet as a Palin troll. You posted these same lines on multiple sites for many months, now. Such as: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/hadley-freeman-blog/2011/oct/07/sarah-palin-worst-week-ever Seems you use more than one name, too, because I keep finding your exact same lines over and over under different tags, too (Emerson, for example).
And this makes it quite apparent you're nothing but a Palin troll, maybe even paid to follow her name around on the net to try to defend her (but using falsehoods in the process).
Given this established trollness, what makes you think anyone is going to believe anything you say?
stanley seigler
1:03 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
@RyanH: The Conservatives with engaging tones are regularly outshouted and marginalized in favor of divisive radicalism
spector left the T-GOP...a CA, GOP defector said: GOP colleagues told Fletcher that 'it may be the right thing to do, but we can't let Jerry Brown [or BO] get a win,'... "which is just dumb",. says fletcher, the defector.
@Jeff Davis: Its an interesting question to ponder...
pondering, pondering...
in addition to the above, "it's just dumb"
ponder this:
The preamble to the Constitution states: "We the people [....] promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
it further states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
FDR say: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.
definition: Welfare refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens.
GOPs ignore all of the above...eg, they opposed social security, medicare and the GI Bill...all of which provide 'a minimal level of wellbeing and social support'...
now they want to repeal BO-care.
Jeff Davis
7:37 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
@stanley seigler: My friend, no need to throw out insults like "it's just dumb". It was a simple proposal to ponder, that is all. I hope we can discuss our issues in a professional matter.
Anyhow, as for my question, I actually find it very productive to consider the extreme(s) in analyzing a situation. Not always accurate or appropriate to the analysis, but if it doesn't work in the extreme, why should it work in moderation?
I hear what you are saying as to helping others, the general public welfare, etc. They are noble causes and I'd have to believe capitalism has feed/improved the lives of more people than any other system in history.
As for your FDR comments, I often question if FDR himself would feel the same way given today's circumstances and everything we have learned since he made those statements. You have to put into perspective world events during FDR's time and frankly how close or easy it might have been for the US to follow the same route as the USSR. Those comments are the same type of propaganda the communist leaders espoused ... implemented in "the extreme" ... and did not work. A noble effort for sure, but in hindsight not practical.
My wife was born in Poland in 1982 and recalls standing in ration lines as a 6 and 7 year old (1988+) as each person in the family got a ration of coffee. That was under a system of entitlement, give to the poor, and everybody has the same amount. I wish it worked, but human nature...is human nature.
Jeff Davis
8:05 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
One other practical example if you want to take the entitlement state to an extreme, as it exist in countries that can currently afford it. I spent some time in Bahrain last summer and it is interesting that the citizens are entitle to a lot of state assistance including including medical services and treatment, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, disability benefits, as social security system (which they do not even have to pay in to), no income taxes and more. Due to their oil reserves (or what the Saudi give them to be accurate), it is nearly impossible to get typical Bahrain citizens to actually work. The country has to be staffed with expats to do anything from a service perspective (India) or high level finance, etc. (US / Europeans). They are very smart people / culture ... but there are some common threads we all have as humans ... it is just human nature. It is why communism didn't work, nor will the European socialism models. Give me a house, food, air conditioning, cable TV, internet and a little bit of spending money ... I probably wouldn't want to work either.
stanley seigler
8:18 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
@Jeff Davis: "...insults like "it's just dumb".
generally i do NOt throw out insults...try to stick to facts...the "just dumb" was a comment by a GOP defector (mayor candidate in San Diego CA).
i find it counter productive to consider "extremes" except to reinforce ignorance of GOP's and DEM's.
you shouldn't question FDR...the positive results of his policies are painfully obvious...as history will sustain BO's policies...again do you have any example of any positive results of GOP policies...
will make it easy for you...ike's interstate program...an investment in our country...need more investment...NOT investment cuts.
your analogy to poland 1982 in no way relates to the policies in the USA today or at anytime...nice try...but totally/mostly irrelevant...
still pondering
there's no NO way USA would have followed the policies of the USSR...you are reaching in an attempt to justify the "no reg free market" failed (1929, 2008) policies of the T-GOPs
Jeff Davis
6:03 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
@stanley seigler: My friend, I won't harbor any hope we will agree as to politics, but given our FDR references earlier (4/6/12), I found the following article timely: "Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security?"
What the article fails to mention is that when originally established, the retirement age for social security was the then average age of death. Had that retirement date been indexed to lifespans, we would not have a social security problem, nor would a wage earner today making $100,000 be contributing $15,300 into Social Security each year (individual and company total contribution).
In any case, you said I "shouldn't question FDR" ... I don't because the real problem is what people since him have done to destroy FDR's original intent ... but I do believe FDR would probably belong to the Tea Party if he were alive today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/09/the_origins_of_entitlement_113768.html
Let me know what you think.
stanley seigler
7:06 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
@Jeff Davis: believe FDR would probably belong to the Tea Party if he were alive today...Let me know what you think
thanks. interesting article.
weel as you know i dont believe FDR would ever belong to the TP or GOP...but i do believe RR would not make it past the GOP primaries today...perhaps FDR/RR types could fix the country...
also, believe BO will (mitt wont)...most of BO's proposals were originally GOP ideas...eg, healthcare mandate (heritage/mitt)...cap and trade (1990 GOPs)
as a GOP defector said, "it's dumb to oppose a good plan just to make BO a one 'termer'."...actually he said GOPs said, they couldn't give jerry moonbeam brown (CA gov) a win even if his policies made sense...or something like that.
way past time for the common good to take priority over party spin/bs/crap...return to those "thrilling days of yesteryear" when RR and tipO had a few drinks at the end of the day.
stanley seigler
1:37 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
@Chris Jefferson: Professor Lamb is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts...
ditto for all...seems T-gops and DEMs have their opine which they consider facts...we all should stick to the facts...not OUR facts and hyperbole...eg: "Brezhnevite Social Model"
if one thinks BO's polices are based on a Brezhnevite Social Model...they neither understand BO nor the Brezhnevite Social Model...further;
the "poverty" of their (liberal/progressive) ideas vice the increasing bankruptcy: brought us out the failed GOP 1929 depression and are bringing us out of the failed 2008 recessionary GOP policies...the economy is improving after a disastrous 8 years of W-GOP policies...
please provide one GOP economic success...eg, one economic success...such as under BO the DJI has increase from around 6000 in 2008 to around 13000 in 2012.
BTW palin has done more to destroy the GOPs than the DEM could ever do...she is a bimbo...but like haley she is is cute.
John H
11:22 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
I agree in part with Professor Lamb, however, I don’t believe Sarah Palin will ever achieve the political success of other great American demagogues, good or bad.
She and the tea party have a symbiotic relationship that has evolved both to solidify power at the more extreme positions within the Republican Party. They use melodramatic interpretations of the state of American Politics to advance their cause. They have claimed hegemony over those within the party who do not espouse the t-party rhetoric and seek to minimize the vital influence of a balanced message with broader appeal.
John H
11:32 am on Saturday, April 7, 2012
American demagogues include the one currently occupying the white house.
stanley seigler
1:52 pm on Saturday, April 7, 2012
@John H: "...the one currently occupying the white house"
what issues is BO demagoguing...in your opine...and what are the "your" facts...
definition
demagogue: (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob.
BO does not use "crude oratory"...he is an intelligent speaker with a command of the issues...that he upholds a major tenet of our Constitution to:..."promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"...is not demagoguery.
granted he has used campaigns rhetoric...promised to promote the general welfare (common good) in ways that he has not been able to keep...some could call this demagoguery...
opine: on a scale of 1-10...complete lack of demagoguery being 10...BO rates 8 while the palins and newts of the world rate a 2 at best.
John H
10:18 pm on Sunday, April 8, 2012
He delayed the decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline connection to Canada’s section from Alberta to Montana until 2013 due to pressure from environmental groups. A timeframe conveniently post election. Then in a subsequent on location speech, said that he would “expedite” approval of the southern Cushing Marketlink phase even though it doesn’t need his approval because it involves private land and local permitting. He may be talking about invoking the Fifth Amendment in the process of TransCanada’s claim of imminent domain to hundreds of acres of personal property, viewed as an anathema to families unfortunate enough to exist in its path. http://www.pri.org/stories/science/energy/transcanada-crosses-private-land-in-texas-claims-eminent-domain-8689.html
His off mike comment to the outgoing Russian President Mendvedev indicates that he believes his reelection is imminent, suggesting that postelection he will be in a better position ostensibly to make unilateral decisions on foreign policy in particularly missile defense, an area where the US has a huge strategic advantage.
Stanley, with the admiration toward you that is owed, there are probably another side to the dialogue. I look foreword to hearing them.
He is no better or worse than the previous demagogues who have occupied the white house. History will judge his place among the pantheon of Great American Demagogues.
John H
10:20 pm on Sunday, April 8, 2012
In order to get the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed he cut a deal with congressman Stupack and his block to garner the votes in exchange he would amend the law via executive order to uphold the Hyde Amendment rider that bans the use of federal funds for abortion. He executed EO 13535 within hours of its passing.
President Obama commented on the authority of the Supreme Court to deliberate weather or not a law or part of it is constitutional, saying that he (I’m paraphrasing here) doesn’t see how a group of unelected officials can overturn a duly passed law. He says this when there are instances of him exercising executive order to add to or modify the same law. One example is the recent mandate for all insurance providers to include contraception, enforcing its application to religious institutions previously, under the law, deemed exempt from offering coverage.
During the debt ceiling crisis last summer and fall, in order to garner support for the compromise, he created a “super committee” to achieve the mandated 1.2 trillion deficit reduction then vacated the process. When the committee failed in its mission, he blamed the Republicans. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-12/politics/30390581_1_president-barack-obama-mandatory-spending-cuts-deadline
John H
10:22 pm on Sunday, April 8, 2012
Hi Stanley;
Definition of a demagogue;
1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.
If I had to create a thesis to explain my comment, I would blend the primary and secondary definition rendering a more benign characterization, perhaps describing all politicians, the election process, and the role that sophisticated mass marketing techniques play.
During his campaign, BO made speeches with promises of change and transparency. Many voters crossed party lines, hoping for something different than the previous demagogue.
This is what I see. There is a pattern of typical politics.
reg
12:24 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Um, John John? Johnboy? *Stupak's demands were never met, and were not included in the Act.** While the GOP is paying its trolls to make that claim (as national news already noted), we know it's not true (as national news also noted).
Give it up - don't waste our time telling us completely made-up information that you're told to post online.
stanley seigler
12:50 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@John H: "...there are probably another side to the dialogue..."
certainly politics involved in the issues you bring up...vice opining on each...suffice to say i see BO's actions in a positive light where you see them negatively...eg, a deal to pass BO-care was a positive...
re: "He is no better or worse than the previous demagogues who have occupied the white house. History will judge his place among the pantheon of Great American Demagogues"
agree history will judge...i believe favorably. maybe a great one...but for now i see BO as "better" than most.
stanley seigler
2:12 am on Monday, April 9, 2012
@John H
dont disagree with def of demagogue...but BO does not (my opine) not fit yo def...BO is an articulate proponent the basics tenets of our constitution....to promote the welfare of all...not just the 1%...
re: He is no better or worse than the previous demagogues who have occupied the white house
he is far better than W who,lied us into a war and the policies that led to the 2008 recession...and GOPs who think trickle down, voodoo economics work...
Mark Winter
10:52 am on Monday, April 9, 2012
BO does not use "crude oratory"... No, he has to use a teleprompter because he's too unintelligent to speak or answer a question without a prepared statement.
And he definitely panders to the prejudices and passions of the uninformed.
stanley seigler
11:38 am on Monday, April 9, 2012
@Mark Winter: "..."BO does not use "crude oratory"... No, he has to use a teleprompter"
there is no connection between "crude oratory" and one's ability to effectively use a teleprompter...ie, some resort to crude oratory with or without a teleprompter.
BO effectively uses a teleprompter and intelligently articulates issues without one as well...eg, his press conferences.
re: "he definitely panders to the prejudices and passions of the uninformed"
pls provide an example of his pandering and examples of the uninformed...it's painfully obvious BO is very intelligent...and his IQ is 145...right up there with clinton, carter, JFK, FDR.
that you see BO as unintelligent...may speak to your intelligence...or perhaps you believe skin color determines IQ.
reg
3:31 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Say, Marky-mark: every president has used a teleprompter since the day the teleprompter was invented. we have photos of all of them using the devices. And before teleprompters, they read directly from notes they held in their hands or had on the podium. So, what other juvenile trash argument are going to borrow off the internet next?
John H
6:00 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
To Stanley;
Weather I agree or disagree with Pres Obama's policies, the one positive thing I can say about him is that his intentions are in plain sight. He means to use the government to help people who make less than $250,000/year and is attempting to get it from the top earners.
The previous demagogue in chief used the government to assist those in the middle somewhere >0% but <100% at the expence of those somewhere in between.
John H
6:28 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
To Stanley; "where you see them negatively"
I'm not afraid to tell you the truth. I wailed and gnashed teeth over the passing of PPACA but it may turn out to be the only chance I have of some semblance of health insurance that my wife and I can afford in as we enter our declining years before we’re eligible for Medicare. Ironic, isn’t it?
stanley seigler
6:52 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@John H: "...He means to use the government to help people who make less than $250,000/year and is attempting to get it from the top earners..."
sounds like a policy championed by the CONSTITUTION, ie, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 'general Welfare' of the United States..."
it's not like he's playing robin hood...he is collecting taxes based a fair rate to fund programs that provide for our GENERAL WELFARE...eg, education, medicare, social security, the military..
why shouldn't rich folk pay their fair share to help provide for the general welfare of our country...just what is it you object to, if anything.
oh/and, the USA did well when rich folk contributed 90% for the general welfare in the 1940-50...and 50-70% until reagan took over in the 80s...then richfolks paid 35-40 % and the wealth shifted to the 1%...
stanley seigler
7:16 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@John H: "...it [BO care] may turn out to be the only chance I have of some semblance of health insurance that my wife and I can afford"
all is irony...
believe others will experience your awakening...ie, tho not perfect BO-care is a step in the right direction...and there are no death panels...ie, we can now deal with real problems with BO-care...stop wasting time trying to repeal...just because BO suggested it...
Dr. John
12:24 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
stanley,
Please learn the difference between general welfare and distributed welfare. General welfare in the constitution is widely known to mean things that the government does that benefit every american. These are things like roads, schools, national defense, border security and monetary policy. General welfare does not mean food stamps, subsidized housing, or "welfare". Also general welfare does not mean sheltering wealthy peoples income. A good test for the "general welfare" clause is to ask youself if the benefits being proposed can be provided to all americans, not just a few. It also helps to know that the term "welfare" today has been completely redefined from its meaning in the 1700's. What is sad is that the constitution is slowly being rewritten by a slow, purposeful change in our language with the intent changing the one document that was instrumental in creating the greatest nation ever on the face of the planet. The freedom that it provided people opened up human ingenuity, productivity, and enabled the ability of a nation of less that 5% of the worlds population at one time to provide more human comfort and improvement in the lives of almost all peoples on the earth. In spite of this, because of our poor perspective of things over time or our reluctance to realize this greatness, we are slowly tearing down the one document that set all of that progress in motion. There is no nation that compares to ours over the last 250 years or the last 5000 years.
stanley seigler
10:15 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
@dr john: "...learn the difference between general welfare and distributed welfare..."
"Welfare refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of well being and social support for all citizens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
not dr john's incoherent rambling discourse but concise and to the point...not sure what dr's point is...maybe to justify T-gops disregard for the general welfare that the founding fathers had in mind.
the general welfare referred to by the founding fathers is same today as it was then..."the provision of a minimal level of well being and social support for all citizens."...including "food stamps, subsidized housing, and 'welfare'".
stanley seigler
11:41 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
@Dr John: "What is sad is that the constitution is slowly being rewritten by a slow, purposeful change in our language with the intent changing the one document that was instrumental in creating the greatest nation ever..."
dr john's comments on the Constitution are NOT an "incoherent rambling discourse"...they are concise and to the point...and prompted me to google a little...
i should not have brought the constitution into a discussion of general welfare...to argue what the founders meant is not productive...
so my opine that we should provide for "general welfare" (today's definition) of all citizens...may/may not be supported by the constitution...and that's OK...and i wont bring up it's the right thing to do...but i did.
Mark Winter
1:19 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@stanley - as to "he definitely panders to the prejudices and passions of the uninformed", I was loosely paraphrasing John H.'s definition of a demagogue, which I feel describes Obama. When he said in one of his State of the Union speeches why the majority of Americans disagreed with his healthcare plan, his response was "I guess I just didn't explain myself very well". So he thinks, and apparently you do also, that anyone who opposes his policies is stupid. And I don't care what his IQ is, he is definitely not the smartest guy in the room when it comes to solving our problems.
And did I mention skin color anywhere in my previous post? Perhaps it is you that lacks intelligence. Remember, voting for someone based on their skin color is just as racist as voting against someone based on their skin color. I don't do either one.
stanley seigler
2:38 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@Mark Winter: "... So he thinks, and apparently you do also, that anyone who opposes his policies is stupid. And I don't care what his IQ is, he is definitely not the smartest guy in the room when it comes to solving our problems...
BO nor i have said those who oppose his policies are stupid...if i missed it pls provide a reference.
oh/and, many of his policies were originally GOP ideas...eg;
the Bo-care mandate was originally proposed by the heritage foundation and adopted by mitt in MA...and cap and trade proposed by free market GOPs and adopted into law in 1990...17 tax cuts to small businesses (GOPs love tax cuts)
the one policy that is all BO's a tax on the 1% (rich folks) and depending on which poll quoted 47% citizens agree with him...including buffett and gates...
a quick easy stat showing his policies are succeeding...ie, getting us out the 2008 disaster, caused by trickle down, voodoo, economics...to which GOPs want to return...
DJI in 2008 at 6000...in 2012 DJI at around 13000...just for good measure stat: losing jobs in 2008...gaining jobs in 2012.
Mark Winter
3:22 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
BO nor i have said those who oppose his policies are stupid...if i missed it pls provide a reference.
I did when I referenced his State of the Union Address.
DJI in 2008 at 6000...in 2012 DJI at around 13000...just for good measure stat: losing jobs in 2008...gaining jobs in 2012.
Has nothing to do with Obama in spite of his defecit spending and union protectionism. It has to do with companies forced to downsize, become leaner and run more efficiently. Now that they are profitable again and starting to hire. Things would be going better if his administration would get out of the way.
reg
3:34 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
And please, please, please tell us, Mark, how his administration is *in* the way? I still can't believe you trolls think that anyone who reads your made-up comments believes anything you say.
stanley seigler
4:06 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@Mark Winter: "...I did when I referenced his State of the Union Address..."
sorry this is another example of your unrelated comments...you say BO thinks those who disagree with him are stupid...i asked where has he said or implied this...you respond: "i did" (nothing to do with what BO said or implied)
re: "Has nothing to do with Obama in spite of his defecit spending and union protectionism."
maybe maybe not: his deficit spending (aka investment) created jobs, saved Detroit, the auto industry...
his union protectionism...aka middle class protectionism vice 1% protectionism...is bringing the middle class back to the prominence it knew prior reagan and certainly prior the trickle down policies of W...ie, prior to the take over by the 1%
re: "going better if his administration would get out of the way."
really! like hoover (1929) and W (2008) admins did...there is a such a stark comparison between the results of economies of clinton, and BO vs hoover's and W's...what is it the GOPs dont get...
their policies have failed...name one success beside the one i mentioned, ike's interstate...which was an investment.
stanley seigler
3:25 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@Mark Winter: "...Perhaps it is you that lacks intelligence. Remember, voting for someone based on their skin color is just as racist as voting against someone based on their skin color. I don't do either one.
perhaps...for sure i cant follow your logic...seems you just incoherently string words together unrelated to specific comment/subject...eg, what does it matter you did/did not mention skin color...
i mentioned it as a possibility you call BO unintelligent...there were no other apparent reasons for your opine...his policies are succeeding...his IQ is 145, he was awarded the nobel peace prize, etcetc.
so what is the basis for your opine...further what does racist voting have to do with BO's intelligence...
Mark Winter
3:29 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
the one policy that is all BO's a tax on the 1% (rich folks) and depending on which poll quoted 47% citizens agree with him...including buffett and gates...
Yeah, tax the rich. The 1% that pay most of the taxes already. Squeeze 'em if they got it. Take from the rich earners and give to the lazy 99 cents worth.
Buffett and Gates can afford to be liberals and tell everyone else they need to pay more taxes. I'll bet neither of them file a short form when they file their income tax returns. They do just like everyone else, take as many deductions as they can. If Warren Buffett thinks we should pay more in taxes then maybe instead of investing 4 billion dollars in Bank of America he should have written a check for that amount to the U.S. Treasury. When he, Gates, Soros, Weinstein, and their ilk start paying more to the government let me know.
reg
3:41 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
The US has had the lowest taxes on wealth of all developed nations *since 1964* when it was at 77%. A Democratic administration lowered it to that point, and then lowered it again (70%) just a couple of years later.
Then come those Republican administrations - they knock taxes on wealth down further (50%), and at the same time raise taxes on everyone else. Since 1982, we've been the only country on the planet that taxes people who live in poverty.
Then Bush 1 knocked it lower, so that people in the upper income tax bracket paid a lower percentage than those in the middle income bracket.
That got corrected somewhat a few years later, but our tax rate on upper income is still grossly low.
And now you're complaining that the extremely low taxes on wealth could be raised, and that Obama lowered income taxes on everybody else?
Come. On. How silly can you be?
You don't like that we're sick of GOP and wealth trying to convert our country into some medieval serfdom, using Marxist Economics policies as they operate under an unAmerican plutocratic oligarchy? Then *get out of our country.* Your ancestors are rolling over in their graves. Move to China or North Korea, which are the countries that use the tax policies and economic theories you stump for.
stanley seigler
5:03 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
@ Mark Winter: "Yeah, tax the rich. The 1% that pay most of the taxes already. Squeeze 'em if they got it. Take from the rich earners and give to the lazy 99 cents worth.
not sure this is true...maybe most of the fed income tax ... not total tax...think we have been here/there...
BTW know any 1%er who wants to change places with a lazy 99%er...get facts...not party line sound bites.
re: Gates, Soros, Weinstein, and their ilk start paying more to the government let me know.
they want their ilk to pay a fair rate...ie, at least as much as their secretaries do...seems you and the koch bros want to provide tax breaks to those who dont need them...at the expense of program cuts to po folks, disabled children/folks and to education...
sorry, to me, your defense of the 1% is another example of the irrelevance of most of your arguments...if i miss yo point, pls try again.
John H
8:35 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
To reg re; “John John? Johnboy? …Stupak's demands were never met, and were not included in the Act.”
The Stupak-Pitts amendment was included in the House but rejected in the Senate version. Congressman Stupak and his block agreed to vote yes provided that President Obama sign an executive order reaffirming that no federal funds would be used to perform abortions.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000845-503544.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Bart-Stupak-vows-yes-in-health-care-vote.-What-comes-next
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-21-abortion-compromise-health-care_N.htm
…And this from Congressman Bart Stupak himself published in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602921.html
Let your speech be better than silence, or be silent. -- Dionysius
reg
9:58 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Thank you for confirming that what I said was 100% true; his demands (which also included particular fundings on alternate projects in his state) were never met, and were not included in the Act.
As for the executive order you cite; it's already been federal law since 1972 that no federal funds would ever be used to fund abortions. The executive order did nothing but restate and confirm a federal law that's already 40 years old.
John H
10:57 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
To reg; I have no idea what 1972 law you are referring to. Was there one predating Roe v. Wade in 1973? The ruling rendered most state antiabortion laws unconstitutional. I was referring to the Hyde amendment 1976. It is not a permanent law but a rider that is applied to funds allocated in the annual appropriations bills only for DHHS. Besides it’s immaterial. The Stupak 11 changed their vote upon the promise of the Executive Order, regardless of its effectiveness or longevity as time goes on.
Stupak’s annual request for earmarks for his district occurred after the yes vote, and was never proven to influence the vote. You’re statement is immaterial again.
Now who’s wasting our time making things up?
reg
9:11 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thank your for correcting my mistype of year from 1972 to 1976. And, yes - it IS permanent law. Riders to bills are law, just as the bills are laws. This one is a consistent and automatically included - and PERMANENT rider - it doesn't need to be rewritten and resubmitted and revoted because its automatically included. And Sen. Hyde made it a permanent rider after he had made it an individual term in other bills in 1974 and 1975. As a consistent rider, it's more influential - no bills can be rewritten to bypass it. As for the Stupak-Pitts version, it didn't do anything differently than what the Hyde Amendment has consistently done - and will continue to do with or without that Exec Order, since the Hyde Amendment applies to ALL pertaining to HHS spending and programs in the US. And, no - Stupak's earmarks were on the table and pushed since BEFORE the bill was finally introduced and voted on in the House. And the exec order was not even mentioned until after the Senate vote on the bill - which was after the House (which Stupak serves) voted on it. The whole exec order was immaterial and didn't change squat. Stupak's resistance was the same as Landrieu's in the Senate - that of a Democrat in a Republican-dominant state trying to make sure they looked tough enough and separate enough from other Democrats in order to get re-elected. Nothing more.
John H
10:13 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Hi reg; thank you for the discourse. Assuming the Hyde Amendment is iron clad, why did Stupak feel the need to be reassured and why did President Obama oblige by adding a meaningless Executive Order? Does he presume that the chief executive possess the authority to uphold or contravene duly established law?
I’m looking for clues into the mindset of the President. Does he have a tendency to lean toward demagoguery in the loose sense to pursue his agenda?
reg
11:05 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
As I said, he did it as a show to get him re-elected in his otherwise republican-leaning district (which has since been redrawn). Why did the president do it? Why would he *not*? Did it cost anything? No. Change anything to the bill? No. Take any time or effort? No. Did it make Stupak shut up and then allow things to return to normal order and move on? ... yup. Sounds like a very good reason to take five seconds and sign something. How that constitutes your reference to demagoguery, though, is a mystery. This thread began on one topic; now you're changing it to something else?
John H
12:18 am on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The article refers to Lamb’s book calling out demagogues within the GOP that needs to be rooted out. I basically agree and further maintain that the repubs don’t hold a monopoly. There are plenty on the other side. When I hinted that President Obama was one of them, that’s when the feces hit the air momentum device and dialogue turned to diatribe ...with some exceptions.
John H
8:41 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The rest of the post didnt paste appologies.....A poster respectfully requested that I provide some examples with some backup. I provided five. One of which was events surrounding the passing of PPACA. That’s when you reg interjected your comments while you were on some sort of seek and destroy mission on Monday.
stanley seigler
9:10 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
@John H: "...I provided five. One of which was events surrounding the passing of PPACA..."
kinda lost the point of my request for example of BO's demagogy...the five provided were/are a matter of opinion...the one re BO-care in my opine was NOT demagogy...bur smart politics to pass a most important legislation...ie;
provided a step forward for health care for all...yes universal health care...that said;
one who opposes health care for all could call it demagogy...and that said;
perhaps The Stupak-Pitts amendment details are the subject of another thread...
reg
10:11 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
"seek and destroy"? I think you mean "trip over and dust off" - that's what I did when I stumbled over the completely false info pasted here by well-known Internet trolls who stump for Palin.
John H
10:30 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Hi Stanley;
OK, the PPACA example WAS a bit of a stretch to establish the demagogue point since the main article brought it up. I just see it differently. What it does illustrate is that this president is a skilled political tactician. It’s a matter of opinion if a major league politician equals demagogue. I think it does. I also believe that there are good demagogues i.e. Abraham Lincoln. Like we agreed, history will judge. You believe BO will be remembered positively, I’m not so sure. What he does after his presidency will almost be as important as what he did during it. A.L. was a very unpopular president.
stanley seigler
11:42 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
@John H: "...It’s a matter of opinion if a major league politician equals demagogue..."
agree...it may come to the "intent" of the skilled politician and the demagogue...i believe BO's intentions are pure...OTOH;
the road to hell is paved with good intentions (think i've heard this somewhere:))...OTOHotoh...i think BO/DEM policies favor the "least" and GOP policies favor the 1%...and;
i'm not sure who/what TP's policies favor...maybe the TP and the OWS should form a 3rd party...BTW;
what happened to the TP/OWS...
John H
10:36 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
To reg; " I think you mean "trip over and dust off"
Wrong! I meant seek and destroy.
reg
10:48 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
oh, puh-leeze, john-john. Were that my true intentions, I'd have never created the cure for caner.
John H
9:27 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Hi Stanley; "it may come to the "intent"
I think you hit on something there and I wholeheartedly agree, the intent is what separates the demagogue from a politician. I think some set out to do the best job they can. Not everyone agrees.
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" The addage may be true in some cases but we always manage to overcome whatever road they lead us down.
stanley seigler
7:31 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
@John H: "...some set out to do the best..."
some do, some dont...at about the same ratio as any other avocation/vocation person puts greed/ego above the general welfare...common good...
unfortunate the egotistical a-hole convince the do-gooders they have play the games...
sad those who put ego/greed before the common good seem to be wining...so much lost potential...so much pain inflicted on the biblical least...so much hypocrisy...