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.

This Is News! Gimme A Break ABC!

We've been hearing complaints from the press for quite some time that Hillary Clinton wouldn't release her schedules from when she was first lady. Well, she finally released the schedules and the press rushed to review them. And what is the best that they can come up with after all this breathless anticipation? What was the first bombshell revealed? Here is the headline from ABC News -- "Hillary Was in White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day." That's it? That's the best they can do?

Geesh, give it a rest. ABC ought to be embarrassed. I'm not even a Hillary fan and I don't get the point of dredging this up now. The very first thing they do after all the brouhaha about the schedules is look to see whether she was in the White House on an embarrassing day eleven years ago? Was that ever an issue? Now I can see why she didn't release the schedules. If I was a public figure and all the press could do is this idiocy, I don't think I'd release my schedule either.

Ben Stein's Commentaries

I've long been a fan of Ben Stein whether it is his deadpan delivery in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or his display of intellectual prowess on "Win Ben Stein's Money." He has degrees in economics and law and was a speechwriter and lawyer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. These days you can catch him some Sunday mornings doing commentaries for CBS Sunday Morning, which may be my favorite TV show.

I always look forward to his commentaries. Probably because I find that I agree with him on most things. He has this uncanny ability to put what I'm thinking into words. Of course, he does it much more eloquently than I could whether it is a thank you to veterans, the Christmas season, or the arrest of Senator Larry Craig. (Seriously, don't the police have better things to do than hang out in men's rooms looking for ambiguous "signs" of homosexuality? And shame on the Republican legislators for their gutless response.)

This morning (Sunday, January 6, 2008) he put into words a common thought of mine. That is, that presidential candidates and politicians in general have a very inflated opinion of their own importance and ability to affect people's lives. Like I said, Mr. Stein was much more eloquent and less blunt than I just was. Most positive things in most people's lives (in fact, most things in most people's lives) occur in spite of the best efforts of politicians and not because of them. In Stein's view, the only people whose lives are really affected by politician's promises are the poorest Americans who actually depend on government programs. The only thing that really affects all of us is the ability of politicians to declare war. I agree. I've often felt that the U.S. President gets both too much credit and too much blame for the state of the economy. In fact, I believe that the U.S. economy is so huge that most effects of political meddling, good or bad, aren't seen until many years after the President who implemented them is out of office.

As for our day to day lives, it is our daily decisions and actions that determine the quality of our lives and not the politicians. I think they have more power to screw up our lives than they do to improve them. That's why I'd like to see even fewer laws, and a drastically smaller Federal government. If this is ever going to be a reality, people need to stop voting based on promises or the ability of the local politician to "bring home the bacon."

The transcripts of Stein's commentaries are posted on his website and videos of them can be found on the http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/sunday/main3445.shtml website for CBS News Sunday Morning. Unfortunately, Mr. Stein appears to be three months behind on his transcripts and the video is not yet posted. When the transcript or video for this morning's commentary is posted, I urge you to check it out.