RSS Feed MenuDanny Finkelstein, one of the intellectual architects of the revival of conservatism in the UK, has a superb column in today’s Times on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party:
There is no more eloquent statement of modern Republicanism than resigning office with time still on the clock. Mrs. Palin has chosen to talk about power, rather than exercise it. She would rather write a book and give lectures about being a governor than actually be a governor. And her party has made the same choice…
One of Mrs. Palin’s constant refrains when asked about giving up her office is that she didn’t want to practise “politics as usual”. Well, she can certainly be acquitted of that. And there is nothing wrong with unusual in politics from time to time. But for a party that seeks to govern to speak so openly of its dislike of governing, of the people who govern and of the place from which they govern, isn’t entirely serious.
Mrs. Palin need not worry too much about this, because she has worked out that she can have an entire career, a public voice and a good income entirely by pleasing the Republican base. More broadly, her party has concluded that it can have a fine life just pleasing itself.
barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:20 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm –
“Which states that McCain-Palin did not win would be receptive to such a more conservative, Limbaugh/Palin-type message?”
All of ‘em. (*SHRUG*)
“Would that message play in New York?”
Giuliani…??? (*SNORT*) You do remember him… right? And though Pataki is and was a corrupt piece of… (well, we’ll leave my full review of the Pataki administrations for another day)… recall that when the race was Cuomo vs. Pataki – Pataki running as a red meat conservative on the issues of the death penalty and taxes – Pataki won and indeed served three terms… each re-election campaign “sounding” like a conservative.
D’Amato…??? (*SMILE*) Again… while certainly I could write reams contrasting D’Amato’s talk to D’Amato’s walk, certainly old Alfonse was seen by most as a conservative and often appeared on conservative talk radio.
“What I find baffling is that the only states that voted for McCain-Palin were the most conservative states in the Union, like the Deep South, Idaho and so on.”
McCain was NOT a conservative. Bush was NOT a conservative. The RINO Congresses were NOT conservative Congresses in the sense of fiscal conservatism. Obama caught the imagination of the nation. The media basically held Palin’s head underwater as far as the perception of the “average only vaguely aware” voter was concerned. I’ll never get what’s so “baffling” to you, Sinz.
(*SHRUG*)
“Yet you think that a more conservative message would appeal to states that voted for Obama??? Why???”
SInz. (*SIGH*) (*SMILE*) (*EXHALE*) Your nonsense is all over the site and the archives – as is my brilliant and insightful commentary.
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (*GIVING SINZ A FRIENDLY PUNCH TO THE SHOULDER*)
Seriously… asked and answered… probably several hundred times! (*WINK*)
BILL
barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm –
“Yeah, Barker13…I am baffled too!”
And how are YOUR kidneys?
KIDDING! KIDDING! Just being a wiseass – not being mean spirited! (*CHUCKLE*)
Yes, Marcus… (*STICKING TO THE WISEASS THEME*)… I’ve noticed that you baffle easily.
(*SMILE*)
“Over at TheNextRight.com…”
See… (*SERIOUS TONE*)… maybe that’s the problem! While I’m reading the WSJ and Financial Times and sourcing the Think Tanks, you’re hanging at TheNextRight.com
(*SHRUG*)
“…some Hispanic guy just lamented that Tom Tancredo…”
“Some Hispanic guy…???” “…Tom Tancredo…???”
Yep. This might be the source of your bafflement my cyberfriend! (*SMILE*)
“What on Earth makes you think that an even less compromising, more exclusive message…”
“Less compromising?” DEFINITELY! Say what you mean, mean what you say… follow through… talk the talk but also walk the walk! Yep… “less compromising” sounds like sound advice to me.
As to “…more exclusive message…” I’m not sure where you’re going there. *MY* message is inclusive in the sense that it’s nationalistic, it’s color blind, it’s based upon what I defend as basic fairness and it strives for effectiveness. (*SHRUG*)
Re: Mlindroo // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm –
“So is there any conservative leader in 1995-2006 that meets the “BarkerConservative” test then? Dick Armey perhaps?”
I’ve mentioned Armey. I’ve mentioned Gingrich. I’ve named names all over the site and the archives back me up. (*SHRUG*)
All human beings (and particularly politicians I’d guess) are flawed. As I noted to Brutus recently, anyone who agrees with *ME* 100% of the time is obviously nuts. (97.4% of the time… that person is BRILLIANT!)
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Perhaps you and Sinz are just so used to folks who WON’T provide details and who AREN’T intellectually consistent that my honesty and forthright statements just throw you both off.
(*SMILE*)
BILL