Same song, second verse?

"Are we thinking we're getting a real reformer, but are actually just getting someone whose idea of reform is to replace one good ol' boy network with one of her own?"

I generally assume that whenever someone claims to be a "reformer" (or worse, a "revolutionary"- which is just the same thing but with violence). That goes for Obama as well.

That said, sometimes it works out in the end (look at the American Revolution, for example). But it's better to assume otherwise and work from there.

Rod, Mark Hemingway at The Corner links a post by Jen Rubin critiquing the article; Rubin's post doesn't seem like a knee-jerk "anti-media" reaction, but rather makes several good points. After all, if you have to beat your party's establishment to become governor, who are you supposed to turn to but people you know and trust?

I understand your concern about Bush part deux, but I'm not going to trust the NYTimes to provide any objective context in this case.

As a conservative, I would never think of using a New York Times “news” article as evidence of anything.

"I think you're on to something. When someone is elected they should hire no one they trust or know. They should hire complete strangers, perhaps take out want ads in the local paper."

McCain obviously subscribes to this theory. It explains Palin perfectly.

*drumroll*

Okay, I know, I know. But I couldn't resist.

The Who sang it best: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Whether it's simply replacing one form of corruption with another, or blurring the boundaries of public business by having one's unelected spouse participate in on policy and budget meetings, the indications are that this is another Bush...which may explain why the campaign refuses to acknowledge error, ever.

Won't we be fooled again?

I'm reminded of all the stuff that came out against Huckabee during the primary from the same sort of sources: political opponents, disgruntled employees, and people who thought the Governor wasn't conservative enough.

It seems to me that while Governors make the best Presidents, and Conservatives have some promising governors out there, a lot of us are in the mood to crucify or throw charges out as red meat.

Even popular governors have enemies and rarely will we be able to sort out the full "real truth." So, I guess allegations will due.

Some people seem to actually believe the 'Sarah barracuda/reformer narrative'. Fools.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

"Look, I love the image of Sarah Barracuda tearing through the corrupt ol' boy establishment of Alaska. But how real is it?"

Not very, as was apparent when she was selected by McCain.

"Are we thinking we're getting a real reformer, but are actually just getting someone whose idea of reform is to replace one good ol' boy network with one of her own?"

For those of you who believe this, yes.

Bless,
Doug

Do you think the media ever will learn that by utterly throwing away their credibility with biased, ad hominem, and disgusting hatchet jobs like the ones published about Palin before her convention speech, they render it such that when they actually publish substantive articles with evidence behind them, it's completely dismissed by everyone but Kos readers and Olbermann watchers?

Mr Dreher, you just want desperately to find an excuse not to vote for McCain-Palin, even if it is a hitjob of the NYT... The only thing I can say is that it is good that you are in Texas and that your vote will not make any difference.

Some of the New York Times story is predictable, if you think about it. You don't reform government by leaving adversaries in office to undermine you subtly or overtly. But human nature being what it is, surrounding yourself with personal friends and then tolerating a siege mentality (a rather conclusory label, but I'll let that pass) can mean that you've just changed the color of the corruption and the names of the players who benefit.
At least the NYT is pursuing a legitimate story with actual reporters instead of making things up.

Just another sneaking criminal? When will we stop expecting politicians to be anything else? Normal and good people simply do not choose such a profession.

I guess Rawlins is correct about Rod and I feel better. It does seem he wants to do the right thing and thinks it out.

The problem with the seige mentality that we see in Bush and Palin is we are the them.

I agree with GrumpyOldMan that a debate about who has seemed more at home in her or his respective political cesspools -- Palin in Alaska or Obama in Chicago -- is not a debate that Obama wants to have and one that McCain surely does.

As for the secrecy, it seems to me that it would be hard not to be a bit secretive for self-defensive reasons in a political context as known for corruption as Alaska is.

"Openness" on Palin's part could reasonably have been seen as openness to attacks by the old boys who ran the state unchallenged until quite recently and still do to a considerable extent.

Palin ain't playing bean-bag with these people.

She's part of a revolution to send them metaphorically speaking to the guillotine.

So none of this surprises me or alarms me more than it ought to.

I suspect that most but not all of the shadows-side of Palin will come to be seen as a function of the less than flattering light into which she is and will continue to be cast by a malign collaboration between the old boys in Alaska and those in the left-liberal establishment and the MSM.

Match.com couldn't have produced a pair of more compatible bedfellows than those.

If you choose to work for any government agency or office, you are not free to speak your mind as a on-the-record representative of the office. You know that going in, and as I recall to be the first this you are told in orientation. If you don't like or understand that going in, you shouldn't work there. And when it comes to elective offices, if the new guy comes in you know that as an at will employee you might be looking for work and should get your resume together. The idea that telling government employees to keep their mouths shut is some diabolical Machievellian scheme is laughable; it's standard operating procedure everywhere by pols in both parties and in every state.

I'm having a fun time watching conservatives twist themselves inside out (or should I say "flip-flop"? or "waffle"?) to justify so many things they'd never countenance if done by the opposition.

Playing fast and loose with the Constitution? GOOD, when done by Republicans.
Eavesdropping without a warrant? GOOD, when done by Republicans.
Torture? GOOD, when authorized by Republicans.
Pre-emptive invasion of other countries? GOOD, when done by Republicans.

Now Sarah Palin has gifted us with a whole new repertoire of praiseworthy behaviors.
Per Carey J, above: Spoils system--GOOD! Cronyism--GOOD!
Ignorance and inexperience? GOOD! Secrecy, stonewalling, use of public office to carry out personal vendettas, use of public funds for family expenses . . . er . . . good? Are you guys sure you want to go there? Ah well--apparently so. Lying outright about your record: definitely GOOD.

Remember the big-time resentment from conservatives that Hillary Clinton played a role in her husband's administration? But there's no outrage that Todd Palin is kept in the loop on government e-mails, helps make state budget policy, and is delegated for arm-twisting phone calls. No, that's all (you guessed it) GOOD.

And, of course, though they can't whole-heartedly endorse running around with strippers, infidelity, divorce, pre-marital pregnancy, covering for your wife's drug addiction, and being too busy to notice that your daughter is having regular sex with her boyfriend and getting pregnant, these things are perfectly understandable and quite forgivable now. This is really good to know.

Following up on Francis Beckwith's excellent analogy: Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers are clearly Big Pussies, and Barack Obama has looked to be more a Big Pussy himself than a Tony Soprano in terms of what guys he chooses to make -- or rather what guys he chooses to be made by.

In short, the One has shown himself to be none-too-wise a guy.

Go read up on Reagan some more. He had actually studied and written about national and Foreign policy quite a bit before he became president. He had a good knowledge base on which to make decisions. He was not totally dependent on advisers. His knowledge allowed him to pick good advisers decide which recommendations to choose.

We have no idea if Palin's appointments will be successful or not. 19 months is not long enough to tell. Alaska has had a budget surplus due to the windfall profits tax she passed. Alaska's economy is unique. She has had to decide what to do with excess money, not write a budget based on acquiring revenue and then deciding how to spend it.

Why has absence of preparation for office become a virtue? What is wrong with a candidate who reads Foreign Affairs or The National Interest or any serious journal? What is wrong with having a candidate who has engaged with serious thinkers? Buckley's phone book comment was amusing and technically correct since the kind of intellectual you are likely to have at Harvard or Yale is one who will be highly specialized in one very narrow area, rather than the generalist level of expertise needed in politics. Still, it was the intellectual Buckley's ideas that helped to shape and move the party. Who did he interview? With whom did he discuss the big ideas of his era? Look at the success of the warrior scholars of our military. Petraeus went to Princeton. Nagle, McMaster, Kilcullen (ok hes an Aussie) are Ph.D. types.

Is it too much to ask that those who want to run our country actually prepared themselves?

Steve

sigaliris,

The character on *The Sopranos* was named Pussamano or some such -- I can't remember exactly.

His nickname was Big Pussy or Uncle Pussy.

Pussy was a poor pick of associate on Tony Soprano's part, because he proved to be more of a liability to Tony than an asset.

That's certainly been the case with Jeremiah Wright and to a lesser extent (so far) with Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers in relation to Obama.

And I suspect that Obama himself will prove to be a similar liability to anyone who chooses to associate with him, even if only by granting him one's vote.

That's the only thing derogatory implied by the Big Pussy analogy.

And Tony Soprano's only symbolic siginificance in Francis's and my jest is as an example of a leader, an administrator, an executive, the presiding head of an organization.

Neither Francis or I are implying that we want as president a mafioso or other such embodiment of urban corruption in Northern big-cities.

Obama's relative proximity to being such a thing is precisely why Francis and I oppose him as strongly as we do.

The word "pussy," when applied to a political opponent, means only that he has some resemblance to a TV character whose name you can't actually remember? Yeeeesss . . . uh huh . . . and if anyone actually believes that, I have a Bridge to Nowhere that I'd like to sell you. Cheap.

Good grief, Sig, your knee-jerk feminism has overtaken you. Big Pussy was a character in The Sopranos.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | September 14, 2008 1:59 PM

Good grief, Rod. Why not one post from you about the absolute mendacity of the McCain/Palin camp?

In other words, the LYING.

Daily.

About everything.

When Karl Rove says your campaign has gone too far, there are problems. Yet not one word about this from you, or the myriad of Palin supporters.

Been busy the last couple days and while gone, I did manage to see some op-ed stuff, mostly complaints that "Palin didn't do well in the interview". The parts I've seen she did fine.

But I got to wondering, as I've had to spend some 7 hours on the road in the last 40, and a somewhat tedious 7 hour training session dealing with our youth outreach ministry... What DO people want?

I'm tired of politicians who give "in the beltway answers" to questions... policy wonking, guarded answers designed to minimize political risk, rather than be straight and clear and bold.

And gee, I've noticed a LOT of people on both sides of the aisle with the same wish.

But, let's pick a couple of candidates, and toss them up with their VP choices against the wall and see what comes out.

Guess what? Many of those people who proclaim tiredness of politics as usual suddenly demand tons of it. They want polished interviews, with prepared answers that don't sound prepared. They want people with "lots of time in Washington DC" for 'experience'.

I consider myself a political junkie, just about, and I can't tell you what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Every time I hear it there's a different definition. And that definition morphs according to who is using the term.

Yeah, we want people familiar with the world around them. Then we demand someone who's got a decade or two living isolated from the real world in the high reaches of political unrealism.

I know of only ONE of the 4 people on the two party tickets that probably knows how to keep a business afloat and roll with the punches and not get wiped out. I know of only ONE of those people who has had work at manual labor. I know of only ONE of those people who has lived as most of us do - making ends meet and facing all the ordinary challenges and questions that ALL of us (maybe some of you are set for life, I'm not, I know few who are).

But in living that way, you're not a "world traveler" nor will your passport be stamped with all kinds of exotic places. Hell, you had to figure out how to buy new tires, cause the potholes are shoving gravel through the tread and you're on the 4th flat in 3 months. And you had to juggle the bills when the furnace went cold.

That's us. That's 96% of everyone.

But that's not anyone in Congress. It ain't Charlie Gibson, Obama, or Biden. It ain't even McCain.

Obama's spent years currying his favor with the media. He's worked for years to bury the skeletons, struck the deals to keep the unsavory or "disorderly" out of sight, and hired millions and millions of dollars worth of image construction and reconstruction - so he'll appear to relate to you.

Palin's past looks like ours. A life lived without regard for media scrutiny. At least not national media.

She might not ever have read Hayek or Rand. She might not actually care to study Keynesian economics in depth, or rattle off what Classical Economics is.

But I can gaurantee you she knows what happens to the budget when taxes go up, and how capital gains taxes whack you down. Or how to pick and choose what stays and what goes when the budget needs to balance, using real life decision making factors.

She's been the employee. The employer. The risk taker. And the one who loves the risk taker. You do NOT watch someone go work on the North Slope in the winter without knowing the severe dangers they face and how just small things can end your life.

Or even cheer when your loved one leaves on that 2000+ mile race across the most harsh, forbidding, lonely and dangerous race in the world.

You've learned to not let fear control you.

Does that make her walk on water? Nope. A miracle worker? Noooooope. Does it gaurantee she'll solve every problem for you? heck no.

But it does mean that she's not going to live by the fear of not getting re-elected. Or make her decisions by the poll numbers. And that the impotent threats of those who would crucify her in the media are more a test of us than her. Been there, been through it, don't care anymore.

If fate should bring evil, and she become president, I would not fear. In her face I see the things that I admire far more than media glitz, and what leads me to trust others I know and trust, because they're trustworthy.

She's been through the fires I've been through, and then some. And came out fine.

So what do YOU want?

Let me just congratulate you and give you a hearty pat on the back for posting this. It is always painful to see unpleasant things like this surfacing about someone one likes and supports; but it is highly crucial that all of us keep a clear head in an election like this, and that we listen to the good, bad, and ugly about our candidates. I myself could have spit nails when Obama (whom I support as the lesser of two evils) voted for the renewal of FISA, with its warrantless wiretap authority and immunity for telecoms, for example (If I hadn't thought McCain would be Bush III that would have lost my vote for Obama, in fact). I know how you feel. It is a sign of courage and integrity to share with us stuff that is highly unflattering to a candidate you obviously like greatly, and I want to give you major kudos for it. Well done, Rod!

The scariest posts to me are those that embrace Sarah Palin because 'she is like me' 'She's one of us!' 'She's been through what I have been through!'

All of which begs the question; The why aren't YOu running for President since she is your separated-at-birth sibling. Why would I want to vote for you? And if not, why then would I vote for Palin?

Does anyone have any idea how many people voted for George W. Bush because he was unexceptional, 'a guy I'd like to sit and shoot the s___ with while sipping a brewsky'? A whole, whole lot.

This isn't American Idol here. Where someone rises overnight from obscurity to rule the world after America texts, "We could be friends".

The scariest posts to me are those that embrace Sarah Palin because 'she is like me' 'She's one of us!' 'She's been through what I have been through!'

You have no idea, do you? Do you actually think that being enmeshed in the political machine in Washington DC gives you wisdom, judgement, or understanding of ANYTHING?????

If you think so, it is YOU who is scary - in your complete and utter silliness of thought.

All of which begs the question; The why aren't YOu running for President since she is your separated-at-birth sibling. Why would I want to vote for you? And if not, why then would I vote for Palin?

Hmmmm...

I was going to retort to your silly hyperbole, but then I realized that you're just angry. Someone has punctured the balloon of your previously believed "upper echelon" of your imagined elites. Of the millions and millions of dollars spent on image creation for Obama, it is actually worth nought, if a nobody with no insider "credentials" into the old boys club can actually get in, it means that the "elites" are vulnerable to reality.

Too bad.

You need a dose of real life.

No, Palin's not my "sibling". Not even my 10th choice down the list. But the hypocrisy of those here is breathtaking. They pay lip service to wanting change, but fanatically demand we retain the structure and culture intact that got us precisely to where we are.

Oh, and I happen to think Bush has been a good president. Not outstanding, but good. A man of many admirable qualities.

too bad your blind hate is just so overwhelming you can't observe reality.

I think Sigaliris has a good point that the Right is awfully quick to accept and even praise amoral behavior from their own while harshly railing against it in their enemies. It says something when conservatives start quoting Stalin -- their readiness to embrace the amorality of politics makes me think that they have more in common with the Reds than they have differences. Of course, trying to remove the motes from the eyes of one's neighbors is by our fallen nature a more entertaining pastime than getting rid of the board in front of one's own.

There is a disregard of Palin's real flaws here -- you don't need to pursue vendettas in order to break the Old Boy's network, you are not helped by hacks and flatterers if you want to get tough with the oil companies. Yet Palin very much embodies pathologies that are typically associated with left-wing revolutionaries - an inability to separate the personal from the political, a readiness to act on personal grudges - in a right-wing guise. She might be tough, but so was poor doomed Sonny Corleone, who also had a big problem separating what is business from what is personal. Politics for people like her is personal because she would rather hurt her enemies than consider the well-being of the whole (which naturally includes her enemies).

Frankly,it's my observation that when anyone prefers candidates that are 'just ordinary folks, like me', they have a whole lot of emotional baggage that's way past the post of being unpacked.

Hmmmm... Because one makes the learned observation (obviously true) that Beltway Pols make horrible administrator and rarely good leaders, one has "a whole lot of emotional baggage..."

So, it's now a mental disorder to dislike the political inbred culture in Washington DC?

YOU have serious issues, dude. No idea what or why or how, but this is beyond the completely absurd, into the realm of "Huh?".

Here's the BIG Glaring discrepancy. She took on Randy Reudrich. She never took on Ted Stevens. As a matter of fact, he campaigned for her for Governor. What??? You've never heard of Randy Reudrich? And you knew who Ted Stevens was even before he was indicted???? Shocking. You might consider the fact that you knew who Ted Stevens was, but didn't know who Randy Reudrich was says. To me it says Palin was willing to speak truth to the somewhat powerful, but knew better than to take on the powerful. Lots of intergrity there.

sigaliris,

I repeat:

Francis introduced and I improvised upon an analogy based on characters drawn from a fictional story.

Pussy is what one of those characters is called.

Literary critics recognized long ago that readers as well as writers are responsible for meanings derived from things read.

You've proved their point.

Rawlins, Daniel, et al,

Barack Obama's candidacy is based just as much as Sarah Palin's or anyone else's on appeals to tribal identification with someone whom certain groups of voters are invited to recognize as being "just like" them -- in this case, on the one hand, an African-American, and, on the other hand, a bobo-volvo-latte-urban-metrosexual-snob.

The whole Obama campaign is based on identity politics and caste demagoguery of the crudest kind that has been seen in many years.

It is based entirely on Obama's ability to activate tribal cues simultaneously in the two groups that Democrats depend on most: African-Americans for much of the actual vote that Democrats receive and bobo-volvo-latte-urban-metrosexual- snobs for most of the money to run their campaigns, in which Democrats make promises in order to buy the votes of African-Americans (and others) so that they (Democrats) can get elected and serve the interests of bobo-volvo-latte-urban-metrosexual-snobs, by means of lots of pseudo-populist *talk* on economics and lots of leftist *walk* on the culture wars.

To suggest that Obama is any alternative at all to atavistic appeals to identity rooted in bitter antipathy (ahem) toward those who are not like oneself only goes to illustrate the insularity and the pettiness of spirit on which he and all other demagogues depend.

I agree with Rod. The information about Palin's governing style makes me very worried. Political opportunism I can understand. But cronyism isn't good and given the track record of the current administration it should give anyone serious pause. The secrecy and attempts to circumvent laws for release of public records in decisions is also a trait that fits with the current administration. Remember, we aren't just hiring a President, we're hiring the staff they choose and they're guided by the ethical examples of their leader.

To a limited degree, the end-game strategy of limiting access to the candidates and fostering doubt about all media outlets has had some success. Hopefully, people will see through it soon and demand more accounting -- It's hard to sustain for more than a few weeks and the undecideds are sure to notice.

To be honest, I was happy that McCain and either Obama or Clinton made it to national election. I didn't think the downside would be so bad in either case. However, given McCain's poor choice of VP and considering his age, I think the downside to having McCain in office is now more substantial.

How like a Republican being interviewed--if you don't like the answer you'll be forced to give, just change the terms of the question and pretend you've answered it. Nobody called Obama "Uncle Pussy." Try again. Just sayin' . . . .