Interesting article from Jan 2010: The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama.
Libertarian — or fiscally conservative, socially liberal — voters are often torn between their aversions to the Republicans' social conservatism and the Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility. Yet libertarians rarely factor into pundits' and pollsters' analyses.
According to this article, Libertarians swung back and forth in such a manner that, if the trend continues
Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections they would otherwise win.
Time for the numbers. 14% of the voters are Libertarian. Obviously 14% do not vote Libertarian, and the article doesn't mention which ones lean which ways. More numbers. A 2009 Gallup poll showed 23% had libertarian views. A Zogby poll found that 59% consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and 44% agreed that the term libertarian was applicable.
Who's kooky and on the fringe now?
Libertarians voted 71/27 for McCain. He had good money sense and never talked about social issues. Also, the idea of Democrats controlling Congress and POTUS was scary. Younger Libertarians were more supportive of Obama, which really does make sense. I'd be very interested to know how those people feel about him now.
Abortion is the social issue that splits most Libertarians when they have to pick R or D. I find that mind-boggling. On the surface, sure, of course pro-choice people would have a difficult time voting for a pro-life candidate... But you cannot have fiscal conservatism with a big govt, and those are central tenants to Libertarian philosophy. Libertarians who vote Democrat are saying that a woman's right to choose is more important than the country's fiscal future. Yeah, it kicks me in the gut when I have to support pro-lifers (and so I try and do my part at the grassroots level to move the cause forward), but I just can't prioritize one social issue over the entire country's finances. Who's gonna care about abortion rights when we're broke and hospitals start declaring bankruptcy?
Few of the voters we describe as libertarian identify themselves as such. But the Ron Paul campaign and the burgeoning opposition to President Obama's big-government agenda suggest that small-government voters may be easier to organize than they have been in the past.
I wish the TEA Party could be the new Libertarian party. In many ways it is, but the social issues weigh us down. I wish people could take their religion out of their politics. I wish, I wish. I suppose it's something that the TEA Party puts fiscal issues first, and the social issues aren't part of the platform. It's small, but it's something.
Sarah Palin's taking a tour through New England, and the media is abuzz...
click to enlarge
Where is she going? When? Why?
Palin ain't tellin'.
Her website has dubbed this her One Nation tour. There is little information about tour dates/stops on the website, and even New Hampshire learned about her upcoming visit (detail unknown) through the press. According to Politico, when the NH Republican party tried to find out details about the visit, "Palin's staff wouldn't even return their calls, leaving them to ask reporters for more answers." Palin's staff, by the way, is incredibly small in comparison to conventional expectations and looks something like this:
Who could blame her? Whether or not you believe the MSM hates her, you must acknowledge that Sarah Palin's name brings in record readers and viewers. Palin does not trust the MSM, and, by extension, it would make sense that by now Palin would learn to choose her secret-keepers very wisely. People love to hate her, and the pressure to sell her secrets, however small or insignificant, must be large.
She obviously wants to control the media's story about her tour. She likes that they don't know what she's up to. She likes that she gets to control the show. She likes that, for once, the MSM is flocking to her to discover amoral truths (compared to digging up dirt). Is this whole tour an Andy Kaufman style finger to the MSM? Perhaps. It certainly will be enjoyable to watch the press stumble over each other to find out clues as to what she's doing, when and where she'll, land, and, most importantly, why??
I'm reminded of Madison's Budget Bill protest rallies in February/March. There were people gathering every day of the week, but Saturdays were the big days. Friday nights, gossip would flicker through Facebook and Twitter: I heard Palin is coming! Is Palin coming? Palin's coming! Do you think Palin is really coming?
The mere mention of the possibility of her coming was tweet-worthy. With various celebrities, from Jesse Jackson to Michael Moore, showing up to support the protesters, it seemed that the most important appearance would be Palin showing up to support the Republican establishment.
Palin finally appeared in Madison for the TEA Party's annual Tax Day rally. Her "Fight Like a Girl" speech was streamed live online, and hundreds of thousands watched. And the protesters ate it up.
Here's what some people saw that day:
But here's what I saw as I stood in the snow, surrounded by protesters sporting noisemakers and hate. (You can even see me in the crowd at 0:33.)
The protesters out numbered the TEA Partyers. The TEA Party was there for their annual event. The protesters were there in an "Our House" oppositional rally, the title meaning that the Capitol "belonged" to them (and not to Wisconsin's TEA Partyers). They called, "Come one, come all, hear the call to... DUMP TEA! DUMP PALIN!"
That's some strong hate, y'all.
The protesters may have outnumbered the TEA Partyers, but it's Madison, WI. I would have been surprised if they didn't. This rally, in particular, highlighted a few things about Palin. She knew the tense political climate when she came to Madison; she knew what she was getting into and did not back down from the fight. She used the negative crowd as a platform to get hundreds of thousands to hear her speech. The protesters gave her that gift. Just mention the name Palin, and people will show up.
And that is precisely why the Politico quote has captured my attention. Palin's staff wouldn't even return their calls, leaving them to ask reporters for more answers.
Palin's getting even smarter about how to manipulate the MSM to do her dirty work for her. Her Madison speech, for example, got a lot of buzz because the protesters made it controversial; however, she had to share the spotlight with the protesters. In addition, one of the messages the press reported was that America loves to hate Palin. Nevermind the thousand or so TEA Partyers who withstood April snow and being surrounded by angry haters. It was the two thousand haters that got the attention. Palin had no control over media promotions and coverage of the event, but now she does.
Palin has been critiqued for not using more conventional, traditional methods of reaching out to the people during this early period of presidential fever. She hasn't shaken hands in Iowa. She hasn't reached out to the people. But she's not like the rest of them. She CAN'T shake hands in Iowa. She's too big of a personality to publicize small scale stuff. The only way to do it? Incognito. She can't tell the press, because then they would tell the world.
She also can't tell the press, because they would then own the story. As is, she'll make small stops here and there, and the news coverage will be equally distributed between local reporters who arrive after the fact, pro-Palin tweeters and bloggers, and Palin's own footage. She can control the story.
Palin is entering dangerous territory, too. She doesn't need to win the hearts and minds of Iowa or South Carolina. They already love her. The one thing standing between her and the GOP nomination is people's fears about those who hate her. So she's jumping into the lion's den and driving her One Nation tour through New England's politically rocky terrain. Can she woo Suzie Workingmom from Connecticut? I have no frickin' clue. But it takes balls to try.
As for Palin's relationship with establishment GOP groups, she's not even returning their calls. She doesn't even trust them And why should she, when she's been burned by them in the past. Her political and social views fall in the spectrum on the GOP, making her a party member by default, but her work in Alaska shows her favoring the actual people above the political machines.
Sarah Palin's magical mystery tour shows her working outside of beltway politics. Her unconventional campaign shows her ingenuity and fiscal responsibility. Her desire to put the mission above the media shows her dedication. Her knowledge of the media machine and ability to not only out-maneuver it but also use it for her own benefit shows her understanding of public perception -- both controlling it and its importance, in general.
Everything about these early steps in her campaign shows that she has the qualities GOP voters are looking for. She doesn't just say it, she lives it. No wonder liberals hate her. The big question, though, is why so many hate her -- and whether or not she'll be able to change New England's mind.
At the very least, her One Nation campaign does offer an undeniable benefit to the Republicans. Any time the media hops onto a liberal meme (such as the it's-funny-because-it's-what-the-Democrats'-plan-will-do Mediscare commercial), Palin can come out from the shadows, cause a media stir, and swallow the liberal attempts to control public perception, and she does all this just by being seen in public.
That's power.
ADDED: I hit an emotional slump last night, due in part to researching people's online reactions to Palin. Reading the intense feelings she brings out (both adoration and disgust) became difficult to handle, and I decided that I needed to take a few days off from the Palin Fervor, to preserve my emotional sanity. But even I couldn't resist talking about her tour. And this, folks, is only the beginning.
The taller candidate tends to win presidential elections. This could bode well for Romney or Pawlenty (both reportedly 6'2" or taller, compared to Obama at 6'1").
How would height affect a female candidate's chances? Would a six foot tall woman appear stronger... or too strong? Would a short woman emphasize cultural worries about paternal vs. maternal presidential instincts?
I long for the day that we have a woman in the oval office. I don't think I'll ever see it happen, but I do long for it. I do not long for the likely onslaught of "presidential tampon" humor.
Reading far-Right and far-Left blogs & blog comments all day.
Result: anxiety attack; general feeling of listless dread; lack of faith in humanity, country, future
No desire to leave the house ever again
Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a talk slut. He was attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy; Ed Schultz claimed she criticized Obama for drinkin' beer overseas but praised Reagan for the same actions. (Note: according to Wikipedia, Laura Ingraham's media career began in the late 1990s, a decade after Reagan left office.)
“I do think of the disconnect and maybe the tone-deafness, if you will, of that devastation from Missouri. Heart-breaking pictures and then President Obama lifting the glass of Guinness. There’s something about that, that I think hits people in the gut. . . . Maybe the Irish part of the trip could have been put off to another day.”
Talk Slut, indeed!!
Ed Schultz promptly offered an apology in which he offered to take himself off-air for an indefinite amount of time. He is "deeply sorry" for using "vile and inappropriate language" (emphasis added). He "recognizes the severity of what he said." He wants to take "full responsibility" for what he said. He says he talked to his sons "about character, about dignity, and about the truth. And I tell you the truth tonight that I am deeply sorry." He spends four minutes apologizing to any and everyone. "I know that I have let a lot of people down." (For full text of his apology, scroll down.)
My favorite: "The only way that I can prove my sincerity to you is to never use those words again."
Because, see, it's all about the WORDS he used, not the meaning behind them. Bad Ed, Bad Boy! You called her a slut! "Slut" is a dirty word! "Slut" is a disrespectful word!
What is a slut? Generally, people use this word to describe a woman who is sexually promiscuous, who rejects monogamous standards of morality, and whose identity is based on her sexual activity. The term has negative connotations. The term is used to describe women, and feminist theory often discusses the lack of a masculine counterpart. ("Why are women called sluts while men are called studs?") Urbandictionary.com highlights this issue with its #1 rated "slut" definition: "a woman with the morals of a man".
But Ed qualified his insult. He called her a TALK slut.
What is a talk slut? Only Ed can know for certain, but I'll take a stab at it. A regular slut's slutty actions are sexual. A talk slut's slutty actions are verbal. So a talk slut is loose with their words, rejects the customary code of polite behavior in society, and has an identity based on their bombastic musings. A slut-slut will sleep with anyone. A talk-slut will say anything.
During his four minute apology, Ed Schultz never once apologizes for the meaning of his words. He never says that he does NOT think that Laura Ingraham is a talk slut. He spends the majority of the time taking "full responsibility" for something he presumably still believes to be true. Sounds like a talk slut to me. He may vow to never use those words again, but that won't stop him from accusing women of doing the exact same thing upon which he has built his career.
Ed Schultz made it clear in his statement that he spoke with his sons about the truth, and the truth is that "I am deeply sorry." The truth is not that Laura Ingraham isn't a talk slut. The truth is that he's sorry. The words he chose were wrong, but he apparently stands behind the message. Not once does he make a statement about Laura Ingraham's integrity, smarts, etc. We're supposed to be bowled over by him addressing his words, and he's hoping we just ignore their meanings. Ain't that sweet?
It reminds me of the old joke about a student who asks his professor, "Can you penalize me for what I think?" to which the professors says no. The student then says, "Professor, I think you're an ass."
The feminist argument about Schultz's rhetoric, of course, is that he first criticized a general "they", and when he wanted to find a specific target to criticize, he chose a woman. He used the word slut, because it's the go-to word to define a woman in a negative light. I'm sure MSNBC loves seeing sexism blatantly on display on their network, and Ed Schultz would have fared much better if he had somehow addressed this subject directly in his apology. Instead, he went on and on about being sorry yet never really said what he was sorry about. (It makes one wonder if he is sorry at all, but that doesn't really matter.) Again, he's not sorry for relying upon sexism to prop up bullying rhetoric. He's not sorry for the underlying sentiments and mindset related to his choice of target and his choice of words... He's just sorry for using that word.
On May 25th, Laura Ingraham tweeted, "MSNBC suspends Ed Schultz. Oh great, now his ratings will go up."
Compare that to Ed Schultz's babbling apology. Who looks like more of a talk slut to you?
---text of Ed's Apology--- Good evening, Americans and welcome to The Ed Show from New York tonight. Thomas Roberts will be here tonight anchoring the program, but first I want to take some time to offer an apology. On my radio show yesterday I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness.
It doesn't matter what the circumstances were. It doesn't matter that it was on radio and I was ad-libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today.
I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company.
And I have been in this business since 1978, and I have made a lot of mistakes. This is the lowest of low for me. I stand before you tonight in front of this camera in this studio in an environment that I absolutely love. I love working here. I love communicating with all of you on the radio and the communication that I have with you when I go out and do town hall meetings and meet the people that actually watch. I stand before you tonight to take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it, and I am deeply sorry. My wife is a wonderful woman. We have a wonderful family. And with six kids and eight grandkids, I try to set an example. In this moment, I have failed. And I want you to know that I talked to my sons especially about character and about dignity and about the truth. And I tell you the truth tonight that I am deeply sorry and I tell them every day that they have to live up to standards if they want to be a successful human being in life. And I have let them down. I have never been in this position before to the point where it has affected so many people. And I know that I have let a lot of people down.
To the staff here at MSNBC, I apologize for embarrassing the company and the only way that I can really make restitution for you is to give you a guarantee, and the only way that I can prove my sincerity in all of this is if I never use those words again. Tonight, you have my word that I won't. Laura Ingraham, I am sorry. Very sorry. I'll be back with you in the coming days.
In the article Ups, downs for White House of a Palin Candidacy, CBS notes that while Palin is "quite unpopular" among independents, "her entrance into the race would create a lot of interest in the Republican field". So, Palin isn't worthy of the WH herself, but since the MSM flocks to her, she could make other GOP candidates look more appealing than Obama.
Yes, there is a constant media buzz around Palin. The MSM fails to recognize that their buzz provides her with the platform to reverse people's opinions about her. America indeed seems to be fascinated by Mama Grizzly, for better or worse. Is it so impossible to think that she might -- MIGHT -- be able to use that platform to transform public opinion?
The rest of the article mentions other candidates, using Palin as a launchpad. The "downs [for the WH]" of a Palin pre-nomination candidacy is that it draws attention to Pawlenty, Romney, Bachmann...
If Palin is not a real threat to the Democrats and Obama, why does CBS spend so much time focusing on her in this article which clearly explains that she doesn't have a chance?
What is it about Sarah Palin that makes her so fascinating yet so polarizing? Why does the media continue to give her press if they think she is, ultimately, not worthy of serious attention?
It's a Friday show. Usually these are soft. We'll see.
(I type while I watch. It's messy. It's part of a bigger project that may or may not pan out. If you think it's lame, don't read it.)
I'm on a weird Pro Palin kick, and I sorta want to just read about her instead of watching Beck today. Oh well. On a similar note, I don't think I'm gonna make it to the R Convention next summer. I want the real race to start NOW. All of the talking about who might run and who could or couldn't win is killin' me. I need to read up and find out if/when the deadline is for announcing that you're running. I betcha $100 that Palin announces one day prior.
DooDoodadodaaa
Hello America. Welcome to a special edition. He's sitting with the Founding Father's pic behind him. Mentions some early America data, women would vote, blacks were judges, etc.
Clips of reactions too old series. Old way of teaching history = deconstructionism, teach the negatives. Now clips of old FF shows. IS THIS A CLIP SHOW??
Women of theRevolution show -- what took many by surprise -- that women could vote. (I knew that!) States gave women voting rights. Property ownership = right to vote, so that's how they got it. Most women were voting Federalist. Anti-Federalists wiped them out when they had the power to do so. Also surprising, some women served in military. Shows pic of an Eowyn. Another one, Molly Pitcher. At the end, she was commmissioned as a ,<rank>, given military funeral.
Black FFs -- Slavery was there, but also in elected office, millitary leaders. Battle of bunker hill painting = bunch of white guys. unless you know where to look. points to Peter Salem, a black guy, who was the hero of the battle (doesn't look it in the painting). Battle of lexington pic. Rev Jonas Clark church, called together boys, said "let's go! defend our town!" it was a mixed church, equal # black/white. not shown in painting. washington crossing delaware -- there are black guys. prince whippple. marquis de lafayette. black guy standing next to him, this guy is james armisted. he was a double spy, may have won the war.
The point isn't so much that this stuff happened, but that we are intentionally NOT teaching this information to people. WHY?
First black judge. He was the other guy riding with Paul Revere. (wentworth chessil? southern accent saying the name, didn't catch it.) Rev Haynes (Haimes?) first black preacher. ina white church. ordained 1785. first black to receive masteters degree. first black speaker of the house early on (didn't catch year). paintinng of influentioal black men.
Relationship of Founder w AfAmericans? N/S different. But the Founders, the ones who put it together, came from a world that we don't understand. We're striving to get back to it. Shows obits of blackmen from back in the day. High praises in these obits.
It's not to say that slavery & Jim Crow didn't happen. We got taught that in school. But we didn't teach the good stuff. And so many other things. Jews in the revolution. 8 yr old boys (like John Q Adams) fighting in the war. (Jesus, can you imagine?)
COMMERCIAL
Okay, he summed up the four shows that were the most Aha! (2 on women, 2 on African Americans). Mostly clips. Makes me wish he'd put out a DVD of Founding Fathers Fridays. Anyways, does this mean he was laying the base, and the rest of the show will talk about other stuff?
Taking yesterday as a cue, is this a way to talk about focusing on the good and bringing that back (rather than teaching sleg-hatred of the country via history?).
It's like Beck wants to make it okay to have American pride. Okay to be patriotic. Show that patriotism isn't just for racist hicks.
Much of the African American early history in America really shakes the narrative we teach. A shame we don't use that..
BACK!
The first war on terror. This is round two on war on T. We actually sent ships to the same in 1700s, up until 1816, for 32 years we fought muslim terrorism. Madison dedicated 60% of budget to this.
whoa.
Kicked off the Series w Sam Adams, (more clip show. gah.). In "Faith, Hope, Charity", he's faith. Brits called him Father of the Revolution. They destroyed him. Beck says he had amazing faith in god. beck quotes an Adams speech. You look crazy, don't show it to the public. "They eyes of the people are upon us." Don't show it to the people or we're done for. Ira Stoll wrote Samuel Adams, a life. He's why Adams is "Faith". Stoll says Adams really thought God was on our side, like the Jews/Israel. The Brits called him the puppetmaster. These guys all defended religion. You can be as religious as you want; you can be whatever religion you want. "There is no America as it is today without Samual Adams".
next: Hope. "You're watching the GB special on FFFs. More in a second
COMMERCIAL
So... it IS a clip show. I am disappointed by this. At least, Sam Adams was the only one I caught last summer when he did these, so I'm enjoying seeing the goods.
I am so fucking sick of this Shirley Temple commerical. I hate Media Matters for killing Beck's commercial support with their thuggery and forced boycotts.
newsbreak: last astronauts to do a spacewalk ever. i think it's so fucked up that nasa's done. certainly says something about the state of the country.
DUN DUN DEN DUN
BACK!
People are hungry for their ownb history, just they're hungry for the Constituion. Mention of yummy Federalist papers.
HOPE: George Washington is Truth. Beck's favorite. known as The Indespensible Man. everyone was bickering, stuff was falling apart. here's washington. all he wanted to do was go to mt vernon and be a farmer. his country had him serve for year after year... they cam knocking at his door. "we need you, the whole thing is falling apart." "have i not yet done enough for my country?" most of the choices he made, he didn't want to do. he was revered for it. they knew that in the end, he didn't matter to him, doing the right thing.
Comparison to Obama's "hope". There is no figure in the history of this nation that represents hope more than Washington, says guest. We have writers today who say Founders were deists/atheists, but Founders esp Washington said this country was created because of the intervention of God. (intervention? did I catch the right word?) "It was god who used us to do this." No evidence that he feared death. He was afraid that he wasn't up to the tasik, didn't have what America needed. He sucked at being general at first. He grew into it.
Could someone like Washington be in office today? the two guests say no. Think someone is looking for someone like Washington to lead us, to fix the country. He was unanimously elected time and again, even though he never wanted it. BUt there was something in him. When we started, we were divided. But only one man is the Father of our Country. No presidents come close to the role he played (right guy, right time).
next, charity! Franklin! And then, life after Founding Fridays.
COMMERCIAL
I was always taught --always, relentlessly -- that the founders were deists. (especially franklin). this is collegiate education. i was taught in rhetoric classes that the common language was to include God. (Thomas Paine, once glorified, ended up being hated for not including God stuff in his writings for the French Revolution. he had included God in the american writings.) I can't not trust and believe my collegiate mentors. I can't help but consider that it could be wrong. It's very confusing. I'm able to question the "truths" I learned as a child. It's harder to questions the stuff I learned as an adult.
DUN DUN DEN DUN
Ben Franklin. First foreign embassador, first spy, inventer, (list of other awesome stuff). CHARITY.
Kite, on the money. Franklin created the nation's first hospital. PA didn't want to do it. Ben said "if i raise half, will you match it?" Assembly took the bet, because they didn't think he could do it. That hospital is still operating today. Also started first library. Started first volunteer fire company. Organized first militia (10,000 members). Join or Die -- the broken snake. That was him. 1754. The French are stepping up to drive us into the sea. Indian raids. Militia system isn't enough. Franklin's publishing the most important paper. Starts circuolating the idea of an American militia/army (working w brits). he started debates, arguments, got the discussion going. then, in june, a conference with leaders of colonies. a month before, Frankin published the snake. based on a french myth that they all knew. snake parts can rejoin after death.
next: most influential guy, so how come no one knows who he is?
COMMERCIAL.
I'm trying to be a smartypants and guess who it is. All I can think of is Thomas Paine, but how do people not know who Thomas Paine is? I wonder if he's really a buried gem or a lesser known that Beck likes. I wonder if I know him. I wonder if my knowing him -- or not -- will make me trust the information more/less. (I'm smart if I know him? Beck didn't surprise me and is less smart if I know him? etc)
DUN DUN DEN DUN
There wouldn't be a revolution without... George Whitfield.
wha?
He was the most known guy then. Instigator of the Great Awakening. Michael Jackson. Strained relationship w most preachers (Church of England) who didn't really care about the poor. His message here, he was overtly involved in crisis between brit and colonies. 1764, came to here and said "there's trouble coming" said "there is a deep laid plot against your civil and religious liberties, your golden days are at an end, my heart bleeds for you." When franklin testifies about stamp act, something about whitfield. He was true patriot, not just in words but in actions.
Beck: The Founding Fathers series may have come to an end, but now it's your turn.
COMMERCIAL
Oh yeah! I remember this guy! (linked to wiki, above.) He really was the Beatles. Tens of thousands gathered to hear him. His voice was super loud. Then people would pass back what he was saying to the people behind them, and again and again...
DUN DUN DEN DUN
There's still good ways to get good history. Look at the bibliography. Look for books citing original sources. Go see it, too. (Thinkin about Palin's current speaking tour, where she stops at meaningful spots.)
David Barton (wall builders), that's the guy who's been making a lot of comments.
Beck: Thank you. Respect Memorial Day weekend, but remember what it's all about. Then men and women in our armed forces.
Me: What a wonderful start to Memorial Day Weekend.
