Sunday, September 14, 2008

Sarah Palin Naked? Says who?

 This post began as a comment to a post by Michael Seitzman at "The Huffington Post."  As you can tell from reading this blog, I'm not a McCain/Palin fanboy.  However, Mr. Seitzman's post was a scurrilous, lowbrow, ad hominem attack against every single McCain/Palin voter and not just against the candidate, Sarah Palin.  It is exactly the sort of politics that Obamafans claim to decry and want to get away from.  The basic premise of the post is that anyone who disagrees with Mr. Seitzman is an idiot.  That premise is hilarious considering that Mr. Seitzman's post is totally devoid of intellectual substance and shows a distinct lack of thoughtfulness.  But isn't that just typical of the paternalistic?  Listen to Daddy! I know what is best! But don't take my word for it, this is how his post begins:

She said "nucular." Twice.
I realized three things tonight. For one, if you are a McCain/Palin/Bush voter, you and I do not have a difference of opinion. We have a difference in brain power. Two, she really is as ignorant as I feared. And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)

I listened to the entire interview and didn't notice that she said "nucular" even once let alone twice.  I think I would have noticed because it grates on my nerves every time Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush says "nucular."  (Did you notice that half of these presidents who misprounounced nuclear are icons of the left? Shows how smart they are doesn't it?)  Meanwhile, wanting your wife to watch you have sex with a vice-presidential candidate somehow passes for witty reparte' in Hollywood and shows how very smart you are. Imagine for a moment the indignant uproar if a Republican wrote the following about Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama:  
Michelle/Hilary really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my John McCain sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Communist Manifesto/It Takes A Village. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first rip off her lesbian pantsuit"/ "first wipe off Michelle's tranny makeup." I married well.)
I'm not endorsing these sentiments. I'm just making a point about double standards.  Mr. Palin might be justified in beating down Seitzman's door and impaling him with some moose antlers. I guarantee Barack would be on the next episode of Oprah decrying the misogynistic sexism of the author and saying, "Leave my wife out of this!"  As for Bill Clinton, .... Well, let's not go there. I don't want to sink to Seitzman's depths.

I think Seitzman's opening paragraph establishes Seitzman's own lack of brain power although I think he was trying to insinuate that he's smart and McCain/Palin voters are not. The rest of the post went on to accuse anyone who doesn't vote for Obama as voting for who they'd like to have a beer with. That is, any vote but a vote for Obama is a vote for personality alone.  (Deep sigh!) That's the problem.  Seitzman doesn't get it.  A vote for McCain/Palin might be a well considered vote for their policies and against the policies of Obama/Biden. Not every vote you disagree with is "personality" based. McCain even has an actual track record to base your vote on, unlike Obama.(News Flash!  If experience is the criteria, then the top of the GOP ticket has much, much more experience in all areas than the top of the Democrat ticket. If experience is your criteria, then you need to vote for the old guy.)  Nevertheless, I'll give Obama voters their due too. Some of them may have discerned his policies and decided that they prefer them to McCain's.

The irony of accusing McCain/Palin voters of being ignoramouses who vote solely for who they'd like to have a beer with is overwhelming.  Many Obamafans are voting for personality. Sit back and watch an adoring crowd listening to Obama's mellifluous voice and carefully nurtured cadences. The women squeal and swoon like he's the fifth Beatle.  The men have rapturous, vacant looks. Or is that the men squeal and swoon and the women ...... Well, whatever!  The point is that for those enraptured Obamafans, he doesn't need substance. He just needs that winning "class president" personality and nothing else. One look at them tells you they're not basing their vote on the dicates of their superior intellects.

Intelligent people will dismiss Seitzman's lowbrow rhetoric and abusive ad hominem attacks. His post is so devoid of substance that it is the antithesis of intellectualism.  Seitzman should try a little substance next time. If he wants to show that he is voting for the better policies and not just for personality, then he ought to not engage in personal attacks.  He ought to try identifying and contrasting the policies of Obama/Biden with the policies of MCain/Palin and not just dismiss those who prefer other policies as stupid. 

And let's make it clear, this isn't an either/or choice. You don't have to vote for McCain/Palin or for Obama/Biden.  If you're really tired of politics as usual, then vote for real change.  Vote for the "minor" candidate of your choice and send the message that you're not going to take it anymore. I prefer the policies of Bob Barr.  But then I believe that the greatest good for all is achieved by millions of Americans each seeking what is best for them and their families and then pursuing those choices with minimal government intervention.

By the way, suggesting that an attractive woman in her 40s makes herself up like a transvestite shows just how superficial and fatuous Seitzman is. If this is an example of the intellect of an average Obama voter, then we really are doomed.

As for me, I say a pox on both your houses.  I'm voting for Bob Barr. I really do want change and really am tired of politics as usual.


  1. Great response, I'll retweet too.
    Of course, I hate to see you vote for Bob Barr. I'd like to see a viable third and fourth party, think what would happen to Congress if we had four viable caucuses?

    But Bob Barr isn't the right guy for that movement. For me and my house we'll vote McCain because he can beat Obama and we just got a lot more excited about that vote with the addition of Gov. Palin

  2. Very tough call. In most (though not all) recent elections I have voted for the Libertarian candidate. I never felt like I was wasting my vote. I think it is important to vote for what you want and not to settle.

    Seeing the Republicans lose a race because they were too far left/big government might be just what they need to snap out of it (if they ever can) just as the democrats turned to hard socialism after Nader. And there is where it all starts to come apart for me. As much as I was not a huge fan of Clinton, he was Ronald Regan compared to the crowd at the DNC this year. If there is an Obama presidency and a democrat controlled house and senate, there is a good chance we will lose the country forever. I've not seen any major government program ever shut down. We will have socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth not seen since FDR. I'd like to think that is just the tonic the country needs to wake up but I fear it is just the poison the country needs to be kicked over the edge.

    I am not sold on McCain, but he did pick Palin. While she is not perfect she is certainly orders of magnitude better than Barr was when he was actually in congress. I do believe Barr has changed for the better but I am not willing to gamble this year. I'm giving McCain/Palin a shot. If it was a different Democratic party or perhaps even for a different Libertarian, I might feel differently.

  3. You raise some very valid points, Jeffrey. The example that I've considered is the influence of the Moral Majority/Religious Right on the Republican Party. (There's a Religious Left too. See, e.g., Martin Sheen.) They've gained considerable influence and control. So I've always thought that voting Libertarian would bring the Republicans back to smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, free markets, etc. But I have to agree that you have a very valid point. That is, could it drive them even more in the other direction as they seek to pander to a secure base and end up like the Democrats --- a base of special interests that is out of line with most people. Now I'm in a quandary!