Wrong Reagan
If you're in the mood for more sneering liberal contumely directed at Sarah Palin, you could hardly do better than to check out Pam Geller's appearance on Joy Behar's show, talking about Palin's crib notes. Ron Reagan, Jr. keeps on repeating the mantra, "my father," while projecting the worst of liberal condescension. Let's just say that he entirely lacks the common touch that was one of the most endearing traits of Sr.
The Younger's only point is that Palin is an empty-headed poseur. Yes, it's true that that's exactly how liberals represented his dad---the empty-suited actor with the jelly beans---but the difference is that, as everybody knows, that was a false representation. That many of the same people who levelled the accusation that Reagan was an intellectual lightweight are now levelling the same accusations against Palin makes no difference. He is as certain as those people were (though they are willing to admit that they were wrong now, although it doesn't impeach their judgment), just as John Cole was certain that his former beliefs were correct, and just as certain that they are correct now. Humility is not easily learned by the self-worshipful.
It's true that Palin disparaged Obama's reliance on TOTUS, referring to a "telegenic guy with a TelePrompTer" in her speech at the Tea Party Convention. It's also true that Reagan often used the device. Nobody these days seems to refer to Obama as a Great Communicator, though. There's a considerable difference, I think, between several cribbed prompts written on one's hand, and entire speeches recited off of an electronic screen. We've seen on several occasions to our embarrassment what happens when Obama's elocutionary crutch fails him, and it reminds me a little of Max Headroom. Certainly Reagan was learned in the Founding Fathers' writings (Lincoln wasn't one, Mika) and in American history generally; can one truly say that of Obama? Is it likely that Obama's letters to all and sundry will find their way into a considerable tome after he's gone? Reagan had the habit of writing. It clarifies thoughts, it makes one regard one's audiences. Would Reagan have gone on about a nameless woman who wished to be buried (even though cremated) in one of his t-shirts (the one who, contrary to the narrative, did after all have health insurance, though it had a very high deductible)? I don't think so. He had none of Obama's tone deafness (the ears, they mock!). Liberals (mirabile dictu!) now compare Obama's use of the device to Reagan's, conveniently forgetting how they abused the latter.
Reagan wanted to get government off of our backs. He was a master at going over the heads of intermediaries to speak directly to the American people to make his points. We liked that, because it assumed our intelligence. The contrast with the way health care reform has been conducted could not be more striking. We are told that we are too dense to understand the provisions of mooted health care reform policy, much less how the whole thing would operate in the aggregate. We are told that there's no point in questioning whether even our Congresscritters have read it: it's so complicated that we'd, they'd merely come away confused---better to rely on the talking points. Any program that's so complicated that it's incomprehensible perhaps should not be enacted.
Reagan famously said that it wasn't that liberals don't know anything, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so. Included among those things is the conceit that they're smarter. Joy Behar? Katie Couric? I don't think so.
UPDATE: "Funny man" Stephen Colbert acts retardedly, calls Palin a "f*cking retard."
RELATED: Le faux, mais vrai
VERY STRONGLY RELATED would be David Thompson's observation:
A leftwing professor of philosophy tells us why the humanities tilt so heavily to the left. He says a bit more than perhaps he intended:
“It is because we liberal-arts professors... have carefully studied the actual dynamics of history and culture; and we have trained ourselves to think in complex, nuanced, and productive ways about the human condition that so many of us are liberals... Most of those in the liberal arts have concluded that there really isn’t any other intellectually respectable way to interpret the broad contours of history and culture. They are liberal, in other words, by deliberate and reasoned choice, based upon the best available evidence.”
In short, if you haven’t reached a similarly leftwing conclusion, you haven’t achieved sufficient complexity and nuance in your thinking, you peasant.





February 9th, 2010 - 11:05
Well, I think the liberals have a point. I mean, sure, the smartest man in the world was elected President, but all he has is a teleprompter. How the hell is he supposed to compete with six words scribbled on Sarah Palin’s hand?
It reminds me of several old jokes that usually end with “It’s an ambush! There’s two of them!” Except, of course, Palin had six words. Hard to compete with that.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
February 9th, 2010 - 13:04
Wrong Reagan should go back to hosting dog shows.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
February 9th, 2010 - 11:14
How can people possibly draw a comparison between someone reading a speech from a teleprompter and someone writing a few keywords on their hand?
Of course, I don’t know why she couldn’t have used a sticky note at the very least. Regardless, even a full outline of a speech doesn’t seem like a bad thing to have, just to help the flow of a speech and assure that no topic is left out of the speech.
In the end, anyone who uses this Palin-writing-on-hand “incident” as some sort of argument against her is seriously showing their lack of wit.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
February 9th, 2010 - 13:05
I thought Pam Gellar was supposed to be some kind of crazy lunatic. She looks like a pretty quick thinker and a brave lady. 3 against 1 and she still wins, albeit she had the better argument too.
The hand note thing seems pretty reasonable to me. I don’t think it was a stunt meant to underline how Obama’s teleprompter reliance is pathetic. I think Palin knew it would be handy, if she had a brain freeze, to have a couple of points jotted down.
I don’t see why that’s such a indictment. While it’s obviously no where near as bad as the teleprompter crap, it’s also not really bad at all. People do lock up mentally, even the smart ones.
I thought the interview was really awful, though. Palin is not an elite, which is her appeal and perhaps her detriment.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
February 9th, 2010 - 13:18
That was painful to watch. Who effing cares if Palin wrote on her hand? I think it was kind of cute.
Yeah, the irony that Ron Reagan Jr. is calling a politician a moron is so thick you could choke a bull elephant with it.
I love it that Gellar has a NY accent to complement Behar’s, though Behar’s voice could etch glass; if she recited the Gettysburg address it would sound like an infuriating whinge instead of a noble speech.
Pam was right that none of the arguments they were pronouncing were relevant. “Ask Sarah Palin what ad hominem means,” they sneer, instead of being ashamed for their logical malpractice.
Three against one. That’s how it always is, isn’t it? I’d like to see Behar go up against Malkin, Coulter, and Steyn and see how she comes out of it.
Like or Dislike:
0
0