Sarah Palin and the Mainstream Media Blink

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah Palin and the Mainstream Media Blink

I knew this would happen eventually, but I did not expect to see it in the New York Times.

Look at the following article:

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

By Anand Giridhardas

September 9, 2011

New York Times

From the article:

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa.

. . .

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

. . .

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

. . .

No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

These ideas aren't really new to people of Objectivist/libertarian persuasion. What is new is that someone from the opposite side of the mainstream media is articulating them practically in agreement with Sarah Palin.

Giridhardas didn't get something about her right, since he still has his NYT agenda to plug (and probably believes in it). He thinks Palin's message is against bigness per se and that she is promoting one side of an imaginary divide (more class warfare thinking anyone?) where her kind of people would...

... press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.

But I can understand a misunderstanding, however fundamental, at that distance. And this is because Giridhardas actually mentioned one of Palin's fundamental targets.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

I think it's odd that a person can state this clearly and still not get it, but whatever. If anyone is reading this and does not get it, here goes a simple explanation.

Sarah Palin is not against the bigness of any structure, governmental or corporate. She is against the collusion of big institutions--especially where there is a mix of government and business institutions--when the result is corruption, plunder, and abuse of power.

For her entire political career, she has targeted lopsided government-enforced loopholes and government-protected monopolies and/or cartels that stifle the entry and thriving of small businesses--or even the entry of competent big businesses--and that keep the money flowing to the insiders.

This is why she is so ardent about the Constitution. For as flawed as it might be, it does put some kind of restraints on things like that. After all, the USA has not developed into something like the Iraq of Sadam Hussein or the Cuba of Fidel Castro.

Kat and I saw The Undefeated, a documentary about Sarah Palin by Stephen Bannon, when it came to Chicago. It's not a great film, but one thing did become clear.

Palin took on the collusion of government and oil companies in Alaska, overcame some dirty rotten tricks by both sides, and opened up part of Alaska's oil development to a Canadian company, of all things. Why? Because the Canadian company had more merit.

Notice three things here:

1. Palin did not take on big oil or big government--she took on the collusion of them.

2. Palin won.

3. Palin implemented rational standards for judging what should be done. Awarded parties stand or fall on their performance against those standards, not on their old-boy club contacts.

I'll probably write this thing up later so people can look at links and material and see for themselves.

But right now, I'm sitting here thinking about how the collusion of big oil and big government has constantly led the USA into crappy wars and economic chaos.

There's no sense in pretending it is only big oil (like the lefties do), or only big government (like conservatives--and even fundy Objectivists--do).

The key word is collusion.

Big oil + big government = big bucks for insiders.

(Big unearned bucks.)

But there is another outcome to the same equation.

Big oil + big government = wars, death of non-insiders, and market manipulation.

I see only one person on the political horizon who has stood up to that collusion and actually won: Sarah.

Our gradually awakening NYT columnist didn't exactly get this about Palin, but he did get that there is something fundamentally different in her message and it goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond politics as usual. There are some actual ideas in her message--some power-busting ideas--and they are sound. Now Palin doesn't appear stupid to him.

The mainstream media just blinked.

The crack appeared in the dam. I predict that the water will soon come gushing through.

I think Sarah Palin has waged one of the most intelligent public relations campaigns I have ever witnessed--and part of that is by focusing her actions on fundamental ideas wherever she goes. She is reversing the smear campaign of an entire gigantic communications industry where all members were in collusion with their competitors to make sure the smear stuck.

Well it is not sticking--now not even with one of their own. I have no doubt more will follow. Sarah Palin is not dumb. According to Giridhardas, this guy now thinks she's even some kind of intellectual.

The fact is, Palin is outsmarting them all. She is feeding her critics their own asses and getting some of them to say how tasty it is.

If she runs for President (and I predict she will, but who knows), I will vote for her.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

As you are aware, I have argued along the same lines in supporting Sarah as someone who has courage, competence and a cogent political message.

Additionally, her maintaining her integrity in her actions, despite the salacious slander of the "political class" is, heroic in a Randian sense.

I watched her speech in Iowa last week. It was spot on. Moreover, it clearly resonated the message in Atlas of the incestuous corruption of the " Boyle-Taggarrt" axis, the "Stadler-Ferris" axis and the "Mouch-Thompson-Kinnan" axis.

Through in the "military-media" axis and no "fundie" should be able to rationally maintain their blindness.

I have supported Sarah since McCain made the mistake of picking her with a short vet of forty-eight hours. I knew right away they were clueless as to what they picked which is one of the reasons that they helped try to destroy her.

Moreover, I had been following her during her battles in Alaska because a client, and now friend, had been deeply involved in her campaigns up there and he thought she was a rock solid person, honest and strong willed.

Nice find Michael.

Adam

Edited September 9, 2011 by Selene

[Selene]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential

Beltway Confidential columnist, Timothy P. Carney noticed this also:

Here's an instance where the columnist seems to miss a crucial distinction:

in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

[Reidy]

I haven't been paying all that much attention to Palin. Has she actually said "the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private)" or anything to that effect? This is how the new left talked in the 60s, and I suspect Giridhardas is reading his own beliefs into her words.

Next question: has she actually said that small businesses are good and big ones bad, as Carney seems to claim? Both Giridhardas and Carney appear to identify "big" with "politically favored." They aren't the same at all. As the Acorn sting reminded us, small businesses can be politically favored, too.

[Selene]

Here is the section from the transcript that touches on their comments, followed by the link to the full text and video of her speech.

We sent a new class of leaders to D.C., but immediately the permanent political class tried to co-opt them – because the reality is we are governed by a permanent political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and they claim that they faced and “solved” the debt crisis that they got us in, but when we were humiliated in front of the world with our country’s first credit downgrade, they promptly went on vacation.

No, they don’t feel the same urgency that we do. But why should they? For them business is good; business is very good. Seven of the ten wealthiest counties are suburbs of Washington, D.C. Polls there actually – and usually I say polls, eh, they’re for strippers and cross country skiers – but polls in those parts show that some people there believe that the economy has actually improved. See, there may not be a recession in Georgetown, but there is in the rest of America.

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

So, do you want to know why the permanent political class doesn’t really want to cut any spending? Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done? It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed – a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.

It doesn’t surprise me. I’ve seen this kind of crony capitalism before. It’s is the same good old boy politics-as-usual that I fought and we defeated in my home state. I took on a corrupt and compromised political class and their backroom dealings with Big Oil. And I can tell you from experience that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. So, please you must vet a candidate’s record. You must know their ability to successfully reform and actually fix problems that they’re going to claim that they inherited.

Read more http://hillbuzz.org/2011/09/04/full-text-of-governor-sarah-palins-indianola-iowa-speech-on-september-3rd-2011/

Hope this helps answer your question,

[Reidy]

Thanks for the information. On the strength of this quote, the answer to both my questions is: no.

[Mark]

Beware of leaping from Palin said to Palin believes.

Chances are – heck, it’s a dead certainty – she (or her handlers) constructed this bit of rhetoric out of focus groups and telephone interviews.

Tell ‘em what they want to hear. The ultimate be-all and end-all: get the rubes to vote for me. After that, gravy and to hell with it.

Palin dresses herself up as an outsider, but she’s one of the very "permanent political class" she pretends to be fighting now.

She’s part of "corporate crony capitalism," a friend of "vast, remote, unaccountable institutions," an enemy of a "capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics." She herself is part of "the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys."

The "little guys" – isn’t that precious?

She herself, right now as she speaks, is "a slap in the face to our small business owners" – her use of "our" being a telling slip. Her political record belies any concern for "the true entrepreneurs, the job creators."

Better Obama than this political hack and her handlers. At least the dimmest wit will know he’s an enemy, and a Dem pres & Rep cong is better than gridflow.

Ron Paul is so much better than Palin, there's no comparison.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Mark

[Selene]

-- heck, it’s a dead certainty – she (or her handlers) constructed this bit of rhetoric out of focus groups and telephone interviews.

"...she’s one of the very "permanent political class" she pretends to be fighting now."

Mark:

Interesting position. Any sources for your arguments?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

Palin won me over when, as a member of the Wasilla city government and as a member of a Christian denomination that practiced no booze ever (abstinence), she fought for--and won--the right of the local bars to stay open late. She did that because she separated political rights from her personal moral values.

I don't think Palin has any handlers. I think she learned a hard lesson with McCain's handlers.

As to Ron Paul, I like a lot of what he stands for, and he certainly is a great presence on the national scene, but I don't believe in his ability to dismantle or defang the old-boy government+business network. I see him paralyzed if he gets to chief executive power because of not-so-great skills in infighting.

I think he would make a great cabinet member, though, letting the President do the infighting and backing him. Especially in a position that directly affects the economy.

Michael

[Selene]

Yep, the ignorant slut has some more stupid statements to make...

Mark Twain famously wrote, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out," reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

http://online.wsj.co...EditorialPage_h

[john42t]

I have supported Sarah since McCain made the mistake of picking her with a short vet of forty-eight hours. I knew right away they were clueless as to what they picked which is one of the reasons that they helped try to destroy her.

Didn't know about this.

It's plausible that they shouldn't be on the same side, McCain is pure establishment.

But what did they do? And do you know why McCain picked her in the first place?

[Selene]

I have supported Sarah since McCain made the mistake of picking her with a short vet of forty-eight hours. I knew right away they were clueless as to what they picked which is one of the reasons that they helped try to destroy her.

Didn't know about this.

It's plausible that they shouldn't be on the same side, McCain is pure establishment.

But what did they do? And do you know why McCain picked her in the first place?

John:

That is an excellent question and I never thought about it until now. I was aware of Sarah and her remarkable record in Alaska. Her integrity, her toughness and her admirable personal story. I had a client who became a good friend who spent 11 years in Alaska. He also worked on all of her campaigns, including when she started as Mayor of Wasilla.

Here is one point of view and I am going to inquire in some places in my network.

Everybody's got their favorite theories, and I'll look at a few in the coming days. But for the moment, I'm sticking with my idea that McCain caved to the Religious Right:

For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

With time running out, and after a long meeting with his inner circle in Phoenix, Mr. McCain finally picked up the phone last Sunday and reached Ms. Palin at the Alaska State Fair. Although the campaign’s polling on Mr. McCain’s potential running mates was inconclusive on the selection of Ms. Palin — virtually no one had heard of her, a McCain adviser said — the governor, who opposes abortion, had glowing reviews from influential social conservatives.

Poor guy. He has so little control over his own party that he can't even choose his biggest booster as running mate without getting flack.

Somebody suggested the other day that Ralph Reed was instrumental in hammering on McCain to select Palin. I haven't seen any confirmation of that, and I had thought Reed was pretty out-of-the-loop these days. But Reed's been raising money for McCain, and it sounds like something he'd say:

There is still much work to do for McCain to win conservative hearts and minds. I talked to two nationally prominent social conservative leaders over the weekend who told me that right now they do not plan to vote for McCain. In Louisiana on Saturday, Mike Huckabee won self-identified evangelical voters 57-33 percent and won very conservative primary voters 55-32 percent. Remarkably, this is after McCain had achieved the status of the presumptive GOP nominee, suggesting deep and latent ambivalence among conservative and faith-based voters.

What can McCain do? First, he should choose a running mate with strong conservative credentials, both on social issues and economic issues. Then he should adopt a conservative platform at the convention, and run a general election campaign that sounds conservative themes on taxes, terrorism, and values. If he does those things, he should be able to unite the party. If not, it will be difficult to rally the grassroots and win a highly competitive, close race in November."

Indeed, Reed was tickled pink with Palin's selection.

That's all a side issue, really. The more important question is what the Religious Right hopes to get out of Palin. Doug Wead isn't always the most reliable Evangelical observer, but I think he had a point a while back:

Evangelicals welcomed John McCain’s meeting with Billy Graham today, but more importantly, recent appointments, such as Pam Pryor as senior advisor at the RNC, is sending their morale soaring.

After feeling like they had been hung out to dry, with the dumping of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley, evangelicals are feeling a little better about John McCain. His meeting today with Billy Graham came just in time. In fact, if my e-mail bag is any indication, for the last ten days some evangelical leaders have been feeling downright warm and fuzzy about the Republican nominee and primarily because of his willingness to use born again Christian staffers at the RNC and in his campaign.

This was a quota and a patronage hire. The Religious Right wanted to have one of their own as close to the top of the ticket as they could. And in that it's September and the McCain campaign has no freaking ground game to speak of, they weren't exactly in a position to refuse.

Which leaves only the question of why Palin over Pawlenty? The Times has perhaps the best answer: Palin fit McCain's "self image" better than Pawlenty.

In other words, yes, as with most things with McCain, it all boils down to the candidate's ego and his campaign's weakness. Oh, well.

Damn good question John.