erp Monday, 18 January 2010 at 12:38

Has Media Matters complained that the most important piece of legislation in the history of our republic is being concocted in secret sessions at a secret location and that not even all duly elected legislators are being allowed in?

Harry Eagar Monday, 18 January 2010 at 20:20

Does this mean she isn’t running for anything? I know it’s the new era and everything, but nobody has run for president and won without going before the public since 1920.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 18 January 2010 at 20:38

That’s the concensus. But my view is that Palin herself doesn’t know if she’s running. She may well have decided to put off the decision and see how her efforts at going before the public work. Maybe she’ll sink and retire. Maybe she’ll catch fire on the American Street and sweep in to office like a part time Senator. I don’t know, Palin doesn’t know, and I suspect she knows she doesn’t know (e.g. it’s a known unknown). Fox News may seem like a good place to work on it before committing. It seems somewhat Reaganesque — didn’t he spend some years with a radio program?

erp Tuesday, 19 January 2010 at 07:47

Harry, Palin is hardly hiding. She wrote a book about herself that sold millions of copies and she’s been speaking out regularly on issues.

She’ll also have some sort of commentary presence on Fox News. I think that’s very smart because in that format she can say whatever she wants and it’s out there unfiltered by the media harpies’ distortions and spin.

There’s lots of time for her. I think she’s only in her early 40’s.

One thing is clear now I think (hope). National candidates in addition to being good looking and articulate need to come across as regular guys.

Arrogant elitists like our current president need not apply in the future.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 20 January 2010 at 22:20

I like Palin very, very much, but unless the future diverges widely from what I expect, she is NOT the person that we’ll need in the White House in ‘13.

Someone like Romney might fit the bill, but in any case I very much hope that we get the “hard man” that Harry Eagar expects will eventually be demanded by the public.

Arrogant elitists like our current president need not apply in the future.

To be fair, it’s very hard to accomplish anything worthy of making one a viable Presidential candidate without ending up as an arrogant elitist. Some people are just better at hiding it than others, and of course there are a few people whose outstanding accomplishments do not divest them of the common touch.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 20 January 2010 at 22:45

I myself backed Romney during the 2008 primaries, but I have since changed my mind. It seems to me that technocrats like Romney don’t end up doing well as Presidents (Carter was quite the smart, policy oriented wonk). I think we might well be better served by Palin as President with Romney as VP or a leading cabinet position while serving as Palin’s XO on domestic policy. Palin will be able to use the bully pulpit far better than Romney, and he would likely do better with the nuts and bolts (vs. the overall direction) of policy.

erp Thursday, 21 January 2010 at 10:17

Rough, the two best presidents in recent memory, Reagan and Bush, were as far from arrogant elitists as is possible.

aog, I don’t know about Romney’s vaunted executive skill and wonkiness. He just comes across as trying too hard. You know the kind of kid in class who memorizes everything, but has no idea what it all means.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 21 January 2010 at 10:49

erp;

Isn’t that precisely the kind of guy who makes an excellent executive officer? He can do great things if he is just pointed in the right direction.

erp Thursday, 21 January 2010 at 11:45

Okay then, as long as he’s well supervised.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 23 January 2010 at 11:00

W. Bush was the very definition of an arrogant elitist - why do you think that he never bothered to explain anything to the unwashed masses?

He just wasn’t culturally pretentious.

Nothing about Palin’s public life, back to when she was a talking head on TV, suggests to me that she is capable of holding a tiger by the tail. Rather, she does best when she’s the tiger.

erp Saturday, 23 January 2010 at 12:12

Rough, what didn’t Bush explain?

I’m not sure I understand about Palin holding the tiger by the tail. Surely, that’s a weak, dangerous position, so why would she, or anyone else, want to do that?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 24 January 2010 at 01:21

Because a tiger is a very powerful force, that one might wish to unleash upon one’s problems. But, like fire, playing with the tiger can be very dangerous, thus the need to hold the tail, to keep control, lest the unleasher be eaten as well.

It’s an oblique way of implying that Palin hasn’t yet shown herself to be capable of “well supervising” hi-powered subordinates that she’s “pointed in the right direction”. In fact, everything that’s been publicly revealed about Palin’s VP run and the way that she was forced out as Gov. of Alaska suggests exactly the opposite - that she’s disorganized, undisciplined, not particularly good at foresight or planning, and unwilling or incapable of being a political assassin.

If she brings in an accomplished Alpha male to be her VP, or Chief of Staff, she’s likely to end up as a figurehead.

She’s a primal force, not a plotter. She rose from being Mayor of Tinytown to Governor of Alaska by being the tiger, savaging the bloated, soft and complacent members of the corrupt GOP of Alaska.

But she’s not really engaging the national forces of corruption, not positioning herself to be able to say “I told you so” when the next downleg comes. At least, not yet. Maybe when the book tour’s over, although I won’t hold my breath.

What she really ought to do is to align herself with Rep. Ron Paul. He’ll never be elected President, so she could easily pull his supporters into her camp for the big race, and he’s well-enough positioned to end up as the moral high ground and Cassandra-esque voice of wisdom in the fullness of time.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 24 January 2010 at 13:17

I, too, favored Romney, as the closest thing to a hard man on offer, though he comes with a lot of baggage I don’t care for.

But you get only one president at a time, and it makes sense to ask for the one who seems to grasp the biggest problem.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 25 January 2010 at 08:16

it makes sense to ask for the one who seems to grasp the biggest problem.

Exactly, which is why I ended up liking Palin. My view is that our biggest problem is the disconnect of our political class from the American Street and, frankly, reality.

P.S. AVRRA, I don’t think someone who is disorganized could possibly accomplish what Palin did on her own. Either she’s a lot more organized and disciplined than you think, or there was some one else running her who was (e.g., Obama). If you can’t point out who would be the latter, you may want to consider the former.

erp Monday, 25 January 2010 at 09:05

Rough, if by “primal force, not a plotter” you mean, Palin sets the policy and the tone and hires competent trustworthy people to carry out her orders without micromanaging them, then I agree, it’s the best way to govern.

It’s better than an alpha type at the top who has flunkies carrying out orders and a lot better than the situation we have now with a flunky at the top being run by the aggressive alpha types he’s appointed, Rahm, Axelrod, Holder …

Couldn’t be a worse situation.

Harry Eagar Monday, 25 January 2010 at 12:40

The American Street is the half that doesn’t vote.

I am no fan of Obama’s, but he isn’t nearly as disconnected from reality as Bush was.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 25 January 2010 at 14:53

Having a leader who “sets the policy and the tone and hires competent trustworthy people to carry out her orders without micromanaging them” very often leads to “the situation we have now with a flunky at the top being run by the aggressive alpha types he’s appointed.”

President Grant, for instance.

Nobody knowingly hires incompetent, untrustworthy people. But when you’re hiring hundreds of people, some of them are going to end up being one or the other. Anyone who sets policy and tone, then leaves ‘em alone, is BEGGING for trouble.

erp Monday, 25 January 2010 at 15:16

Harry, I wish I had the energy to respond properly to your last comment. Here’s the short version.

The half that doesn’t vote, doesn’t count.

Bush is not only connected with reality, he has an emotional attachment to it and to we the people who live in it.

Obama is either deranged by drugs or has some other mental disability. Apparently his memory is so faulty, he can’t make the simplest statement without a teleprompter. Unusual for a man under 50. We better find out what’s going on before Michelle pulls an Edith Wilson.

erp Monday, 25 January 2010 at 16:21

Rough, why so simplistic?

There’s a chain of command as in any organization. That’s why it’s so important that a president have executive experience, if not in government, then in business. Those who aren’t complete neophytes like Obama know how to run an organization and who they want in it.

Palin doesn’t look like a woman who would tolerate flunkies around her.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 25 January 2010 at 23:38

Yes, any organization has a chain of command, which is usually visible and fixed.

However, almost all organizations also have a chain of power, which is usually obscure and variable.

Being elected POTUS only guarantees you the top spot in the chain of command.

The issue here is, how well would Palin do in the struggle to dominate the chain of power?

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 10:05

I am no fan of Obama’s, but he isn’t nearly as disconnected from reality as Bush was.

I, on the other hand, don’t think we’ve ever had a President with as much reality dysfunction as Obama. The man has no grasp of anything, where as Bush at a minimum understand real world diplomacy and foreign threats.

AVRRA;

Quite well, I think, given how she handled opposing interests in Alaska.

erp Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 10:29

Rough, maybe it’s a guy thing because I don’t equate dominance with leadership.

Let’s win this next election before we engage in reasoned discourse about the next. I think may have a shot in November. Headline I’d never thought I’d see in our local liberal rag.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 11:40

What foreign threat was it that Bush understood? Seriously. Iraq’s secular government was a foreign threat?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 14:48

Quite well, I think, given how she handled opposing interests in Alaska.

They made her resign the Governorship. I don’t view that as “well-handled” by Palin, even if she did want to shake the dust of the Alaskan backwater from her boots and play on the national stage.

erp Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 16:29

Au contraire, I think she was smart to resign. The media had her in their sights and she wanted time to reorganize herself as a private citizen so she’d be free do and say what she wanted in a way she couldn’t do as a sitting governor.

I don’t know if I’ll support Palin for president, but I do know that I support her right not to be smeared with the kind of personal pounding she’s taking.

If you don’t like her policies or positions —fair; don’t like her children, her hobbies, her haircut — foul.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 18:07

AVRRA;

I was thinking of things before that, such as the pipeline deal. Palin wasn’t forced out until she was attacked by the entire USA, not just opposition in Alaska.

Mr. Eagar;

The secular Iraqi government was a threat. Just ask Kuwait, an ally. Caliphascism was a threat and the Ba’athist regime helped fund and supply it. Beyond that was the ability to fight the caliphascists in their territory, not ours, and get some internecine action as well. So I think Bush understood that threat axis very well. Obama, on the other hand, is surprised that sweet words and charm don’t make foreign leaders do what you want and you think he’s the more grounded one?

Is your view that threats to our allies are not threats to us and should be ignored? That’s been tried, it did not turn out well.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 20:41

Let’s add this and note that I don’t remember Bush having to haul a glass reality anchor with him every where in order to stay in our universe.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 January 2010 at 09:15

Oh, look, more reality dysfunction that’s so bad even strong Obama supporters are noticing.

And Mr. Reality thinks the press is against him.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 27 January 2010 at 11:31

I didn’t say Obama has any better understanding of threats than Bush, you know. I’m on record at length about the folly of Kilcullenism.

I just said Bush II didn’t understand threats. Nor Reagan, for that matter, who was anxious to have the Iran-Iraq war ended when those two states were usefully employed destroying each other. It’s a pretty good guess that if Iraq had had to keep an army in the field against Iran, it wouldn’t have had one to invade Kuwait.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 31 January 2010 at 16:26

I just said Bush II didn’t understand threats.

False. Here is what you actually wrote.

I am no fan of Obama’s, but he isn’t nearly as disconnected from reality as Bush was.

Is that statement no longer operative?

Harry Eagar Monday, 01 February 2010 at 21:18

Nope, still operative.

He was divorced from reality by imagining that Arab Muslims were thirsting for democracy, and he proved he didn’t understand the threat when he broke bread with the mullahs.

I’ve been saying this for years. Years have passed, and no reason to change my mind.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 02 February 2010 at 07:40

In contrast to Obama, who has a more accurate and better policy in that regard?

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 03 February 2010 at 12:13

Nope. Neither one gets it. I just said that Kilcullenism is folly.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 03 February 2010 at 15:01

Your view is that “neither one gets its” therefore Obama “isn’t nearly as disconnect from reality as Bush was”. Keen insight and logic indeed.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 03 February 2010 at 17:38

In my mind, anyway, there is a difference between ‘not getting it’ and entertaining delusions about Arabs who thirst for democracy.

It’s hardly worth debating. If you don’t know where you’re going, you are not likely to get there.