McCain-Palin Tantrums

Campaign insiders know that John McCain has an anger management therapist, but it now looks like Sarah Palin needs one as well.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

The notion of both these hotheads in the White House, spurring eachother on in their vendettas, is a legitimate campaign issue that hopefully the press will be brave enough to tackle.

This entry was posted in Journalism, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to McCain-Palin Tantrums

  1. iloverudy says:

    Its time to ensure that all citizens understand that it is a responsibility to vote and not just a right. These times require a large, educated and motivated electorate.

    Sarah’s Alaska is Half Baked….

    This is how it starts.
    Blog On!

  2. alex says:

    Jon — I’m curious, is there anything you like at all about the Republican Party, or is it just all horrible and evil?

    Is there something, anything? If not, that’s cool, but I had thought there was a reasoned dialog earlier on this blog. It just seems a bit tired with the constant vituperative attacks on McCain/Palin.

    I’m a Republican, and while there are fundamental differences in core philosophy, I see plenty of good things in both parties. This constant polarization, one view vs. the other, is the core of what’s creating the problem in this country. It would be more productive if we could start looking for common ground, as opposed to constantly attaching ourselves to “one side” or the “other side”.

  3. Jon Taplin says:

    Alex-My father was a republican and I worked for John Lindsay’s campaign in New York City. The Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay and Bill Weld was a party of fiscal discipline I could respect.

    The party of George Bush and John McCain has dragged the most important election of our era into the gutter of lying attack politics that Lee Atwater pioneered with the Willie Horton ads, and George Bush followed with Swift Boating. John McCain follows with the vile Kindergarden Sex education ad.

    How can you look yourself in the mirror and say you are proud to be a Republican?

  4. dragonmage06 says:

    I’m really surprised that there isn’t more talk about his anger management issues. I gotta say that I’m not really surprised that Sarah has an anger issue what with that “never blink” thing.

  5. P. Cross says:

    Jon, I could be wrong but even though the bill in question dose not focus on sex education for the little darlings, there is a section providing for it.

    Was the Willie Horton ad untrue? How about the Dem’s Texas piece about the pick up and the chain or lying about Social security being privatized, anyone who works and retires in Galveston or under STRS and PERS knows better.

    Sometimes it is sufficient just not to be a Democrat.

  6. P. Cross says:

    Jon, I could be wrong but even though the bill in question dose not focus on sex education for the little darlings, there is a section providing for it.

    Was the Willie Horton ad untrue? How about the Dem’s Texas piece about the pick up and the chain or lying about Social security being privatized, anyone who works and retires in Galveston or under STRS and PERS knows better.

    Sometimes it is sufficient just not to be a Democrat.

  7. Dan says:

    Alex, I don’t now how you yourself spoke about politics during, say, late 2001 through 2004, but a whole lot of Republicans were not interested in looking at both sides of any issue back then. What mantra did I hear after the 2004 election?

    “We won. You lost. Now shut up.”

    And yet that’s not what is being said here. Far from it. You are free to speak here.

    If you think there are good things to say about McCain and Palin, say them.

  8. Dan says:

    Alex, I don’t now how you yourself spoke about politics during, say, late 2001 through 2004, but a whole lot of Republicans were not interested in looking at both sides of any issue back then. What mantra did I hear after the 2004 election?

    “We won. You lost. Now shut up.”

    And yet that’s not what is being said here. Far from it. You are free to speak here.

    If you think there are good things to say about McCain and Palin, say them.

  9. Alex says:

    I find Obama an impressive (and even like able) person. But I get uninterested in a candidate when I hear the tired old refrains of “Make the rich pay their fair share”, etc. The fact that he vehemently was against Clinton’s welfare reform is an indicator of where this guy came from (and yes, I know he later changed his mind on this). He has been imbued from the start in the politics of the left, and quite likely even in the writings of those such as Frantz Falon. It takes quite a bit to unwind that thinking if you’ve been wired into it.

    Sure, there are many issues with his candidacy, including his rise to power in the wretchedly corrupt Cook County political system (his first election was won through pure chicanery, where he used technical loopholes to disallow the candidacies of every single opponent, thus running unopposed). And with his reversal on the critical FISA amendment (granting immunity to telcom companies, despite an earlier stated promise to filibuster such an act), he is proven to be, simply, like all the rest. His agenda is socialist (albeit carefully watered down and made palatable) — it’s clear to see just reading his website.

    There’s so much more to be said against Obama, but I’ll just be labeled a Republican attack dog.

    As far as the attack ads go, I don’t mind them in the least. There really is language in that bill to give sex education to small children. It may be done in an “age appropriate manner”, but truly, it really is appalling to see this type of thing enter the public school system.

    And then, what hypocrisy: Obama wants to attack McCain for not remembering how many houses he has? That’s unbelievably ironic for a man who purchased a $1.5 million dollar house aided by a crook in order to make his purchase. Further, it’s more of the tired old refrain of “the rich are evil” — then adding even more misleading language that Obama’s tax plan only affects 5% of the population. It doesn’t: It affects the 5% who pay over 80% of the taxes in this country.

    My viewpoint is different in some ways: I grew up as an American expatriate in a socialist country. I’ve seen this nonsense before, and I’ve seen what it does to an economy and society. You start going after the “rich”, you’re in fact going after the part of the society that uses risk capital to create innovation, that creates jobs, that creates savings, that creates a thriving philanthropic base, that pays the majority of the taxes, etc.

    And, as I’ve said before, unfettered, unregulated capitalism is itself anarchy, and I’m not espousing that — certainly the Bush administration is not a good example of how to run a capitalistic system. I do firmly believe, however, that McCain understands the issue and will help this country to get back on the right track.

    I suppose I’d be happy with the love child of Obama and Ron Paul. But that’s not going to happen. And looking into McCain — without rose colored glasses — shows a man who will do a completely fine job of running this country. His history of compromise bit him in the ass with the hard-right, but in my mind, it shows a more reasoned approach. He is, Jon, the type of Republican you claim to admire — the Teddy Roosevelt/Ike/Rockefeller Republican. If anything, you should take solace that the Republican old guard despised him. What’s ironic is that I suspect many Democrats only a year ago were saying that McCain was the “best Republican”.

  10. P. Cross says:

    Dan, A lesson I learned the hard way years ago was that just because I thought I had a good idea doesn’t mean everyone else will agree, regardless . of the irrefutable logic of my argument.

    Just because the response is not to your liking does not mean that your argument wasn’t considered.

  11. Dan says:

    I balance Obama’s rise in the corrupt Cook County political machine (and rise in it he most certainly did, and corrupt is most certainly is) with McCain’s being in the S&L scandal up to his eyebrows. There’s plenty of chicanery to go around.

    I’ll agree that McCain would be better than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, who are both simply wackjobs in my view. Frightening. I have to hope that McCain is saying a lot of the stuff he’s saying for the sake of getting elected.

    If 5% of the people pay 80% of the taxes, they also receive 80% of the benefits of living in our society. They definitely don’t do 80% of the work. Innovation and enterpreneurial spirit are important and to be fostered, but there are disagreements about what is “fostering” and what is “corporate welfare.”

    Obama’s vote on FISA was a disaster in my view.

    But cutting taxes to the wealthy during wartime was another disaster.

  12. Rick Turner says:

    Alex, I’d like to remind you that the Republican theory of trickle down economics was in fact a bunch of fat cats pissing on our heads…

  13. alex says:

    Trickle-down economics is different than free market economics.

    Free market economics, when practiced correctly, provides an equal playing field for all to participate, and leaves government out of the regulation of the economy, save to insure that there is that level playing field; and that there aren’t abuses of the system (i.e. allowing rampant speculation, etc.).

    If you want to punish the rich for being productive, that’s certainly your prerogative. I can just tell you from experience that it’s rather disastrous in the real world.

    The Europeans boast as to their quality of life. However, having recently been in London, I can say that I have rarely seen such a downtrodden, tired, sad group of people. Paris isn’t much better. That’s income redistribution at work.

    Contrast this with Estonia, which is a vibrant, energetic society filled with hopes, dreams and action. It’s called the Baltic Tiger for a reason: It’s economy is growing rapidly, and the quality of life improves daily, from being a wretched existence just ten years ago. Now, that is an example of an efficient, fair and just free market at work. They embraced, early on, the economic philosophy of Steve Forbes, which elicits giggles of disbelief from the Left here. But just go there — watch in it action — you’ll be quite amazed when you see a well run community with a free market truly in action and practice. Then go to some of their Scandinavian neighbors and observe the difference.

  14. Dan says:

    P. Cross, the same is true from me. And if Obama wins the election (about which I would have ambivalent feelings), and I hear Democrats crowing that it’s time for Republicans to shut up now, because *they* are running the show, I’ll think they’re just as empty-headed and scary as the Republicans who did it in 2005.

    I admit that I don’t get much out of most of the rantings from any trolls who shall remain nameless. But I read plenty here that, while I disagree with it, and some of it might even make me angry, nevertheless it’s valuable input. Shouting to myself in an echo chamber is a colossal bore.

  15. Rick Turner says:

    Estonian free market capitalists don’t have the incredible power and legal teams that such ilk have here in the US where the whole game is scaled up to gargantuan proportions, making it impossible for the little guys to win. The US is just too big for small businesses, as even the largest businesses in Estonia would be considered here, to have a chance at a level playing field. I do not believe that your Estonian model scales up.

  16. Alex Bowles says:

    Not sure if Alex and alex are the same Alex, but from this Alex, I’d like to say that the Obama / Paul hybrid would be a dream. Clear and time-tested principles of limited governance, combined with an intuitive understanding of the evolution in design that societies and their economics are experiencing.

    About the houses. No one is disputing that Obama is well off. What’s so galling (for many people) is McCain’s detachment. The reality is that our economy, by several measures, is doing well. It’s growing, inflation and unemployment are, by broad historical standards, relatively low, and I’m sure there are several other figures that could flesh out a rosy picture – if that’s what you wanted to do.

    However, an analysis like this would have to be very selective, and blind to a larger issue, which is that two economies seem to be developing in this country. The phenomena should be familiar to anyone who has lived in the third world, where a segment of the population lives in a dollar economy, and the rest lives in a one based on a local currency.

    So the misnomer is to talk about ‘the’ economy as doing well, when the experience of so many in the middle class suggests anything but. The view from here is dominated by anemic job growth, negative wage growth, astronomical increases price extorted by the health care and higher education systems, and government backed boondoggle in the housing market that has severely eroded the value of many American’s biggest investment, and a general sense that retirement funding mechanisms of all stripes are moving steadily closer to the rocks. In short, things are downright hostile.

    So the point is not the personal wealth of Obama or McCain. It’s the understanding. McCain still thinks about ‘the’ economy. Obama can the the economies. The difference in perspective leads to fundamental differences in policy. And that’s the point Obama was making in the ‘houses’ ad.

    Dan, I need to point out that the tax cuts weren’t a complete disaster. From what I understand, Treasury revenue actually went up quite significantly (smaller piece of a bigger pie, and all that). The disaster is that deficit spending increased at a rate exponentially greater than the uptick in collections – and the war was a relatively minor part of that (those bills, sadly, have yet to come due).

    But I agree that it will be fatal for the Dems to adopt the same ‘we won, you lost, now be quiet’ attitude that the Republicans had in 2000/4. Leading lights in the Democratic party are knee deep in some of the most toxic, corrupt and degrading policies we’re all suffering under. Winning the White House and Congressional majorities at a time when the GOP has completely degraded itself does not mean an automatic validation of everything the left holds dear, or some vindicating sign of unshakable moral authority. Far from it.

    Real change would involve some humility from the winning side, acknowledgment that there’s plenty of blame for everybody, and that anyone interested in real leadership will start subordinating party interests to the Common Good.

  17. Rick Turner says:

    Here’s the issue:

    Median income has done quite poorly compared to GDP in the Bush/McCain years. That’s the pinch we middle class folks feel, and that should translate into votes as in throw the bums out.

  18. alex says:

    @Rick — I find it hard to understand your statement that it’s extremely difficult for a small business to succeed here. In fact, I find myself somewhat flabbergasted by it. I have been involved in numerous small businesses, and the ease and simplicity of getting started here in the States is like few other countries. If you’re suffering from some economic malady, the cure is to start a business. The infrastructure of this country is quite cooperative to the effort, I assure you, and you’ll get the wealth that you probably want.

    As for the stats on the Bush years (actually, these go back to Reagen and continue through the glory days of Clinton), it’s a statistic that requires a considerable amount of understanding and explanation as to the myriad issues that go into a complex global macroeconomy.

    Needless to say, there is one thing that I do agree with Jon on: There have been wretched abuses of capital on all sides (don’t count the Republicans as the only ones), which start with how the Fed has been managing money in this country. Fractional reserve banking works beautifully when leveraged to reasonable levels, but not practiced with the extraordinary recklessness we’ve seen in the past. That’s just the stat, and then I’m afraid Clinton shoulders as more of blame for the deregulation of the banking industry that is at the core of today’s problems than most of the other politicos, although I certainly won’t avoid the fact that the true fallout occurred under the bovine indifference of the Bush administration.

    Dan — if you’re calling me a troll, it would be the second time it’s happened (Jon was the first), and I find it a fairly pejorative way to treat those would not agree with your opinions. If I am considered a troll, I will move on and not comment further on this blog.

  19. Jon Taplin says:

    Alex- This is what Tom Friedman had to say this morning. I think it is right on the money

    “Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.

    I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.

    Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?

    Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.

    There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.”

  20. zak says:

    If the public cares that the Republican ticket is trying to steal and lie their way to the White House, when should the tide start to turn with polling. . . shouldn’t that concern be popping up in the polling?

    Or has the Republican Party so successfully labeled the MSM as a machine of the left that questioning the McCain/Palin ticket on honor and truth is cast aside by the right and moderates?

  21. zestypete says:

    @ Alex: The reason we’re so “downtrodden, tired, sad” in London right now is because we’re entering a recession, we can’t get a mortgage and couldn’t sell our houses even if we could, jobs aren’t secure and London always has an immediate reaction to world downturns or upturns in a way I’ve never seen in any other city – the brewing Lehman Bros story has been all over the news for the past week and the affect has been palpable in the city (and the City).

    It doesn’t help that Gordon Brown is a professional miserable bastard and his party is questioning his leadership on a weekly basis (the media does so on a daily basis).

    Plus, the weather this summer has been awful – almost non-stop clouds and rain and doom and gloom.

    So, yeah, we’re not sunshine and roses over here, but then again, that idiot Tony Blair thought it would be a good idea to follow a fellow moron into war and we’ve been paying for it ever since. Then the US credit crunch took hold and that killed our housing market. Now the US banks are blowing up and their distant and no-so-distant cousins in the UK are struggling to avoid imploding. As they say, if the US catches a cold, the world sneezes – and the UK develops pneumonia.

Leave a Reply