Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

It became "uncool" when people associated with that group, AKA "intellectuals", "elites", etc. began to treat those people like lesser human beings.
So somebody likes hunting, country music, and talks with an accent. Clearly they are inferior.
You know why the "working-class mom" approach works? Because some of us feel like a person like that actually understands us. 30-yr veteran politicians with blue blood backgrounds, telling us they know better than us, tends to tick us off. Both sides do it. But the "other guys" (aka Dems, liberals, whatever), are worse. They want to take our money, take our guns, and push our religion into a little box on Sunday morning that has no affect on our lives.
Yes, our country, Christians especially, needs to educate itself better. But the government's not doing a hot job of it.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a completely new slate of candidates for both sides at this point. We've got two old white guy senators, a pseudo-messianiac upstart, and a woman who is apparently too polarizing and too "lowbrow" for some.
I'd love every candidate to be someone from outside "they system".
But hey, I tend to cling to my guns (well, knives), pickup truck, and religion too much. Don't mind me.

regular-American approach to politics [...] has been a blight on the nation since the days of Andrew Jackson.

I got a special kick out of this.

Now, if you'll pardon me for reminiscing a bit .... Oddly enough, it was at LeTourneau that I first got a glimpse of the real face of Republican power in Texas.

All my life, of course, I grew up around ordinary evangelical conservatives -- people who were politically as well as religiously fervent. They were activists in their free time out of genuine humanitarian concern. (Also out of overwhelming fear, in many cases, but let's not leave it at that.) Most were firmly middle-class; a few were lower-middle class.

At LeTourneau, I had the opportunity to attend (thrice) an annual "community" banquet held to celebrate the university's various local donors and supporters. These events were love-ins for oil millionaires and their vacuous trophy wives. The small talk was about how wonderful President Austin is (no surprise there) and how terrible it was that the Longview News-Journal had been critical of President Bush. These were the power brokers of the East Texas "community." They spoke with a folksy twang, expressed anger that any liberal would ever exist, and flew in company planes to events where they donated millions of dollars to causes they did not understand in hopes of getting some other rich person's attention so that they could accumulate yet more money. They wore bespoke suits to an event in a city that was half ghetto. They all knew each other already.

But they still talked like us regular folks. Those who ran for office would be able to slip effortlessly into the part of the good local boy. In fact, they would sound a lot more "ordinary" than I would if I ran against one of them for office. I would be the elite; they would be Joe Six-Pack. (We see this in the 2008 election, where the McCain fortune, whatever it is, dwarfs the Obamas' wealth.)

Now, Palin's family may be worth about $1.2 million right now. In national politics, that's nothing, even if Palin's assets include:

a half-million-dollar home on a lake with a float-plane at the dock, two vacation retreats, commercial-fishing rights worth an estimated $50,000 or more and an income last year of at least $230,000.

You'd think someone with money like that would at least be able to afford to read a newspaper.

The fact is, the Republican Party fakes ordinary a whole lot better than the Democratic Party does. And for a lot of voters, faking ordinary is what counts.

However, Jared, I disagree with you and Jon Stewart about this: I don't want my president to be an elitist. I want my president to be elite. There's a big difference, and confusing the two only gives the demagogues ammunition (as you see in KD's eloquent comment above).

First, I wrote "they system", when I meant "the system". I blame my work schedule.
Incidentally, I have to wonder, what's the giving amounts on McCain and Obama? To charity, that is.
Faking ordinary helps, sure.
Frankly, yeah, I'd mind an elite POTUS a whole lot less than an elitist POTUS. One has the capacity for humility, the other does not.
And while the perception may not be fully true, the perception I get from the Democratic candidates is that of an elitist. They want to tell me the best way my money ends up, and the best way for my kids to do volunteer charity work (look up the Obama Community Volunteer action plan, and tell me the section on middle school kids and college kids isn't a bit fishy).
Is at least some, if not a lot, of it spinwork? Sure? But where there's smoke, there's fire, and that can apply both ways, depending on your leanings.
I think that's a root of all this hubbub these days; people are getting more passionate about their ideas, their opinions, and their ideology, whatever that may be. And it's making the temptation to resort to "those other guys" talk more and more appealing.
And now, I'm getting dinner. Because I'm rather hungry.

Incidentally, I have to wonder, what's the giving amounts on McCain and Obama? To charity, that is.

An excellent question. According to the tax records they've released, here's the answer.

In 2006, the Obamas had income of $983,826 and reported giving $60,307 as charitable gifts -- 6.1 percent. In previous years, they reported giving less; in 2002, the figure was as low as 0.4 percent (on income of $259,394). Not a great track record, I'd say.

The McCain figures are harder to figure out. Most of the McCain family's wealth is in Cindy McCain's name. The campaign does a funny little dance in its statement on the numbers:

In 2006, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $129,390 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation was $64,695. This is 19% of his adjusted gross income.

In 2007, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $210,933 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation is $105,467. This is 27.2% of his adjusted gross income for the year.

So John McCain supposedly donated 19 percent of his income in 2006. But Cindy McCain's reported income in 2006 was more than $6 million.

So John and Cindy McCain together actually donated $129,390 of more than $6.26 million in 2006. Unless my math is off, that actually comes to about 2 percent of their taxable income.

I'll accept the distinction (and the importance thereof) between elite and elitist, certainly. I think part of the point that I was trying to make by using the latter word is that lowbrow candidates like Sarah Palin play fast-and-loose with the interchangebility of the two. I think the fact that she gets away with the "outsider" "Mrs. Smith goes to Washington" image shows a lot of fear born of ignorance on the part of her voter base. They are comforted by the idea of someone who at least pretends to think just like them taking office, not remembering that they would know effectively nothing about how to run the country.

They want to take our money, take our guns, and push our religion into a little box on Sunday morning that has no affect on our lives.

Lies and misinformation, pure and simple. The Democrats don't want your money, they want the rich people's money, cuz they've got more of it. It's the Republicans that want your money. I am constantly and consistently shocked by how up in arms middle-class Republicans get over the idea of taxing the obscenely wealthy.

No one is going to take your guns away. Don't be silly . . . (although, am I to understand from your comment that you don't even have any guns, and so this is just another case of getting, figuratively, up in arms over a non-issue for you?) The Democrats favor gun control, which (in my naivete) I once naturally assumed every sane and responsible person could agree on.

Your religion complaint is probably the silliest of all. I assume it was made based on Biden's comments on Scholl's blog. Laying aside the fact that he was talking about himself personally, and not about you, I think it's important to point out that a) every politician is a different person, and b) the Republicans, as a party, have done a far more thorough and cynical job of exploiting the religious.

In fact, my observation of rank-and-file Democrats has been precisely the opposite of your claim that they want values and beliefs compartmentalized. With the exception of the abortion issue (and even that is far too complex to really discuss in these terms), Republicans have, in my opinion, a slate of the most morally-bankrupt and compassionless policies imaginable. Note that I don't say values, because that's a different matter, and I believe there is an enormous disconnect between the Republicans' stated values and their actual policies.

The Democrats don't want your money, they want the rich people's money, cuz they've got more of it. It's the Republicans that want your money.

An excellent point that cannot be made often enough.

Try out electiontaxes.com to see an illustration. (I haven't yet seen anyone identify specific flaws with this estimator, which was developed by a professor at the University of Southern Maine.)

With my current salary, I would probably pay twice the federal income tax under McCain's current tax plan that I would under Obama's current tax plan. Even if my salary quadrupled, I would still pay more under McCain.

Well, sure they don't want my money now, I'm making less than 30k a year. Well, less than 20k after taxes, medicare, medicaid, social security...None of which are any use to me right now, and I'd really like that money back, or in another system entirely. At least Repubs are discussing giving me the option of moving that around.
And as for the rich...if we tax them more and more, they go somewhere else. If we tax the businesses more and more, they go somewhere else, or fold (if they're smaller). Admittedly, I don't line up 100% with the Repubs here, I want less government than even them, and am more for things like sales taxes and tariffs replacing income tax (tax what we spend, not what we make). But the top...I think it's 20-25% are already taking 60-90% of taxes on themselves. (There's a chart out there, I know there is, but I can't remember where; it had the breakdown of "top X% earned" vs "how much of income tax paid).
I don't agree on gun control. Oh, they say they don't want our guns yet, and maybe these people don't. But each step of control takes more and more from the people; eventually, we're unarmed against the government. Then what happens if tyranny breaks out? These days, about the only "control" I really feel comfortable with is no selling of automatic or explosive weapons. I'd like to see gun licenses be like the driver equivalent; you get it one once you're old enough and pass some tests, and it's revoked if you're convicted of sufficient crimes (of any kind, not just gun-related). Gun control definitely does not equal safety and less crime; just compare DC and Maine. Which one has stricter controls, and which one has higher murder rates, and gun murder rates?
As for religion, most of the Dem examples I see exude the "church on Sunday, business as usual rest of the time", as do many Repubs (McCain somewhat comes to mind).
As for morally bankrupt, frankly, I'm not so sure. For one, on a whole, how many more Republicans and/or conservatives voluntarily give of their own time and money vs their opposite numbers?
And Biden's not the only one. I'm sure we all heard about the storm surrounding Pelosi's comments about abortion and the Catholic church. They seem more concerned with the lives of serial killers than with the innocent unborn. There's more options, after all, than just pushing on the Supreme Court; there's that handy "no" vote on bills that expand abortion definitions, "yes" votes on things like Born Alive, etc.
While we're on disconnect...Why is it it's so bad for me to have made all those little posts about Obama, complete with specific quotes and such, and simply saying he concerns me, perhaps scares me. Yet this post, which is mostly one giant personal attack, is okay? I mean, it's one thing to say "My dislike of Palin was cemented tonight." It's another to rant for a page about how's she's a "stupid yokel". At least you didn't question/insult her family...
Frankly, at this point, I'm ready to kick out the whole Odin-damned lot of them and replace every member of the federal legislative branch, and many members of the executive. Or start my own island.
I myself may just vote 3rd party yet.

My problem with Palin is similar to my problem with Bush in this regard. The "yokel" act might have a slim basis in fact, but for the most part it is one gigantic act. Bush took trips to his "ranch" all throughout his presidency, but now he'll be moving to Dallas. The "country boy" went to boarding school in Connecticut and graduated from Yale.

If memory serves me correctly, Palin has a $500,000 home on a lake. That, and the fact that she is a freaking governor, make the whole folksy act rather hard to believe.

Why is it it's so bad for me to have made all those little posts about Obama, complete with specific quotes and such, and simply saying he concerns me, perhaps scares me. Yet this post, which is mostly one giant personal attack, is okay?

Perhaps it is just me, but I happen to think a person's personality is fair game for attack when that is all she is running on. The woman may have lots of experience with Alaskan issues, but she has said time and again that she never gave much thought to national domestic issues or foreign policy. No amount of winking at the camera will change that.

Despite the attempt of many to label Obama as pure rhetoric with no substance, the man has outlined plans that he and his advisers have created. I've become convinced he will sit down and think, collecting input from experts where needed.

At this point, Palin has acted more like a poorly trained parrot than a leader, and that disturbs me as a voter.

Mr. Wheeler, please let me make one comment. It needs to be said. Although what a relief to see that Sharpton discovered the same thing.

I can almost agree with some of what you say in this post about Palin. But I cannot be sure, nor can I have any respect for what you say here, because of the way you said it. When did it become cool to be well-educated, but not well-spoken and well-bred?

By all means, criticize a candidate's positions or thinking, but please don't say you want an elitist OR elite president if your writing is not above the standards of all the politicians out there.

Not trying to pick on you. In fact, it is pretty hard to write this in such a way that no one can throw the label "hypocrite" back at me.

And by the way, I do not think Randy's response is adequate. Is it ever fair game to swear at people or say you despise them?

For clarity's sake: I'm not speaking for Wheeler in this comment.

So, my understanding of your position is that it is ok to hint that someone is incompetent, overreaching, messianic, anti-American, nefarious and connected to terrorists (as so many nationally prominent conservative commentators have done on television and in print), but it is seriously disturbing for an annoyed blogger to state in no uncertain terms he dislikes Palin and who she is trying to emulate.

If I recall correctly, there is at least one fan of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk in this conversation, and I know for a fact they have said much worse than this about me and people like me.

Is it ever fair game to swear at people or say you despise them?

I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused here. Have I become so desensitized to swearing that I'm completely overlooking the vulgar offense? I just scanned the original post and the comments searching for it, and I must have missed it.

The worst I recall is, "Well, screw you," which I believe is perfectly justifiable considering the sentence right before it at the end of the original post.

I think there are some very fair questions being asked of me, so I'll attempt to answer them. Before I do, I would like to start out by saying that the above post was not in any way an attempt at high-minded political discourse (though part of what I'm trying to say is that Gov. Palin's very presence lowers the level of discourse in the room). Also, this blog is primarily a personal creative and emotional outlet for me, where I air my opinions (often so they can be tested, modified, and improved) for a small audience made up primarily of friends and acquaintances.

That said, I am not attempting to engage in a one-sided conversation with an exclusively sympathetic audience. I am well-aware that a number of my readers disagree with me very strongly on this and other issues. Honestly, if that weren't the case, I probably wouldn't even bother. There is nothing to be gained from preaching to the choir for the purposes of having one's opinions applauded. I am also well-aware that I am posting on the Internet, the largest public forum in human history, and that anyone can read what I say and act upon it. As such, one would assume that a responsible writer (as I mostly try to be) should attempt to adhere to some sort of standard.

In answer to Sharpton (adding to Randy's comments, which I agree with), I have two points. First, as to what is so bad and what is okay, I don't think I've ever expressed any specific criticism of you for asking questions on your blog, as long as I am allowed to come over and disagree and engage in a discussion about it (which, of course, you've always allowed). Similarly, I can (and do) post opinions about whatever I wish and you are equally free to come over here and disagree (as you did above). I don't see any double standard here . . . I have not questioned anyone's right to either express their own opinions or disagree with mine.

Second, while I wouldn't attempt to silence anyone, it's true that I have had a problem with your methods of questioning Obama in the past, so it is worthwhile to look at what I see as the difference. On the surface, I imagine it looks like I've done nothing more than unload a dumptruck of bile-filled vitriol on Palin, why all you did was mildly raise concerns about Obama. I think you're justified in pointing out a disconnect there, which I'll try to address more fully in response to Sharon. The disconnect I see from my side, however, appears on a deeper level.

My criticism of Palin, whatever else it may be, is based solely on direct and sustained observation of her unvarnished performance over the course of an hour and a half during the VP debate. Your posts on Obama, on the other hand, were based almost exclusively on "scare quotes" wrenched from context and disingenuously abused on a variety of what were obviously biased and fringe sources (including his own opponent's campaign). For someone as critical of media bias as you are (heck, as we are), it seemed like you were (mis)placing an unwarranted amount of trust there. In addition, as the above comment pointed out, your tone may have been innocuous, but some of the questions were inflammatory (partly because they were so specious).

Now, Sharon, regarding the tone of this post: I have to reiterate, first, that my primary purpose here was not to employ calm, thorough arguments to win the hearts and minds of those lost souls who think Palin is a heckuva gal, but rather to vent my frustration at something which, frankly, I believe to be an outrage.

When you assess my writing standards, do you mean that I wrote poorly, or in a manner unworthy of my subject? If (as I suspect) the latter, then I would like to point out a matter of genre. This is a political diatribe, pure and simple. It was, certainly, written in relative haste. Were I to rewrite it for "serious" publication, I might change one or two things (for instance, "this woman is an idiot" to the more precise, less grating, "this woman is a vapid hick"), but overall I would leave it just as it stands. It's not "nice," but it is an accurate, personal statement deliberately written in an openly combative tone. That's what I was going for.

Finally, is it fair game to say that I despise someone? Yes. Absolutely. I don't know why that would even be in question. After all, I am merely being honest about how I feel. Are you trying to invalidate the opinion, or merely the expression of it? Is there truly no one in the annals of human history that you despise, or feel is worthy of scorn, contempt, or disdain?

As for swearing at anyone, I can only reiterate the above comment, and add that "Well, screw you" was not addressed directly to Sarah Palin. It was a collective biting of my thumb at anyone and everyone who has the unmitigated gall to seek an important office for which they are in no way qualified.

So, my understanding of your position is that it is ok to hint that someone is incompetent, overreaching, messianic, anti-American, nefarious and connected to terrorists (as so many nationally prominent conservative commentators have done on television and in print), but it is seriously disturbing for an annoyed blogger to state in no uncertain terms he dislikes Palin and who she is trying to emulate.

Nope. Never said this. Guess I figured it was understood that the media and commentators do this all the time (which in no way excuses them). Mr. Wheeler's post struck me because he complained about her folksy jargon with plenty of folksy jargon of his own.

Regarding swearing - Okay, if "screw you" equals "go jump in the lake", then I am definitely wrong on this one and happy to admit it.

Regarding "despise" - I always thought "despise" pretty much equals "hate". If it is that strong, then I guess we just have a difference of opinion about when and how to throw around words like that - if I were to use that word, it would probably be for the actions of people such as Hitler. If is not that strong, then never mind.

Mr. Wheeler, never would I infringe on your rights to say what you want on here. Nor ever imply that you write poorly. (By the way, despite the above-mentioned winces, I enjoyed your writing here and especially the "maverick" point.) Now I do understand this is a diatribe on a personal blog versus a debate in front of a national audience.

If you'll excuse me, I need to leave for work. Will finish in a second comment.

Second comment - Part 2

That was Sharon directly above.

All I wanted to add was this:

Sarah Palin is a yokel, and a putz, and a schmuck... this woman is an idiot.

Palin has taken folksy jargon in national politics to a whole new level.

Sorry, but even counting for genre and audience, there is no way I can take seriously your opinion of her "jargon" if yours is as folksy as hers. I understand you're not out to win hearts and minds, nor on the ticket for vice-president. But this point would be much more effective if it was made in entirely "elitist", polite language.

Okay. I'm done. Yell at me or laugh me off as you please.

I believe the first point you addressed (from Randy above) was directed at Sharpton, specifically at his posts about Obama two or three months ago.

Without quibbling over semantics too much, to me despise can mean something like "loathe," but it also means a lot of other things. Directed at a person and their politics, I was thinking of it more in the sense of "to regard with contempt or scorn." I guess the key difference is between expressing a feeling of hatred towards her person (which, I agree, comes on rather strong) and expressing a certain amount of disgust and disdain for her and what she stands for. Contextually, I think it works, but if I can't adequately account for legitimate alternate connotations and interpretations, then I could probably have come up with a better word.

I understand you're not out to win hearts and minds . . . But this point would be much more effective if . . .

Right. Exactly. It's deliberately not as effective as it could be. By noting that my goal was not to be convincing, we can both automatically assume that I could have been more convincing. One very definite way to do so would have been to use more polite language, I agree.

I still don't understand the jargon thing, though. Scanning back, I can't find any examples of what you're talking about except where I was quoting or being ironical (i.e. "heckuva gal" in my comment above). I feel like you're confusing "elitist" language with . . . I don't know . . . using bigger words and a more careful, deliberate organization of ideas perhaps?

I can write like that, of course, but I don't see how writing colloquially or with an eye towards entertaining undercuts what I'm saying. My problem is less with the very fact that she uses "slangy" terms and more that they are obviously a dull-witted smoke-screen thrown up to disguise the bovine emptiness of what she says. The jargon-laced obfuscation, combined with her tortured sentence construction, is the primary source of my annoyance. I don't feel like I fell into either of those traps in my post.

I was going to springboard into something else here, because I wanted to go back and address some of Sharpton's comments from the beginning of the thread along with some thoughts I had while formulating this response, but I think I'll just make that into a separate post. This discussion, of course, remains open (haven't heard back from Sharpton yet), and can continue here or on the new post (once it's up).

Sharpton works nights, and posts when he's able to coherently do so. Kind of coherently, at least.

First thing I want to address is from Wheeler; one of your first lines talks about her not pronouncing "nuclear" correctly. Did this take into account the fact that she has a noticeable Alaskan accent? The implication here could be that the American President can never have an accent.
From you're comments, you've admitted that this is an emotional, biased commentary. Okay.
On Palin not having "folksey cred":Um, so we'll ignore all the years before her governorship? Like when she worked in an oil field with her husband? Or ran a small town (though I know that'll probably open a can of worms).
On using particular jargon: I see it as her knowing their general crowd to appeal to, and making an effort to do so. Just like how Obama continually harps "yes we can" and "hope and change". (Speaking of which, here's a fun little poster I made; I think it fits the spirit of this post, albeit in the opposite direction)
I still think what's happening here is that our personal views on politics are, consciously or unconsciously, affecting our interpretation of the candidates. That's not bad per se, but I think we need to acknowledge that.
You see Palin and thing "dumb yokel woman". I see her and think "someone who has potential, and hopefully can take some time with McCain at the forefront to learn more about the job and such".
Have I mentioned the semi-subconscious association I've built in my head? Paling reminds me, in some ways, of my mother. Not all ways, but some. Perhaps that drives my reactions somewhat. I'm sure my strongly conservative bent does as well.
I think that's why we're at an impass.
Incidentally, two more things.
First, while Palin may have done lots of folksy response handwaving, Biden lied. Two that stick in my mind are the bit on Obama and Ahmedinijad meeting, and the vote on funding. Incidentally, when Biden was gunning for the Dem POTUS slot, didn't he say Barack Obama wasn't ready? Now he's ready?
Second, my worries of messianic importance placed on Obama are not entirely unfounded. The video or videos of that were up on youtube, I have links for them, but they're down now. "But Sharpton, those are just one group". Maybe, but it's still worrisome, and makes you wonder how isolated this may be.
Finally, if Sarah Palin is so grossly unprepared, is Obama much more prepared than her?

Two things really:

1) I think it's important to separate "Sarah Palin the folksy governor from Alaska who's just so gosh-darned likeable" from "Sarah Palin the inexperienced, undereducated potential President of the United States." Because while I can hardly fault her for being colloquial and having a certain provincial appeal, the other is a serious issue.

I think Jared's problem here is that he tends to overreach the bounds of criticizing Palin's ignorance into simply taking pot-shots at her for being a hick (And I am probably the ideal person to note this, having taken similar liberties at the expense of East Texans on any number of occasions.) Really, it's one thing to mispronounce "nuclear," regardless of what it does to Wheeler's ears, but it's quite another to be unable to answer simple questions such as "What is another recent Supreme Court Decision that you take issue with?" and "What newspapers do you read to keep abreast on world events?"

2) On the front of Obama's inexperience versus Palin's inexperience, we need to make a couple of distinctions. Let's do bear in mind that I'm comparing presidential to vice presidential candidate, but also bear in mind the distinct possibility of a Palin Presidency, should McCain get elected.

Executive Experience: Obama lacks executive experience, while Palin has been executive of some town and the state of Alaska.
Point goes to: Palin

Political Experience: Obama has been a community organizer, a state legislator and a Senator in addition to having been a professor of constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago. The sum total of Palin's relevant experience is listed above.
Point goes to: Obama

Educational Background: Palin has an undergraduate degree in journalism and communication from the University of Northern Idaho. Obama has a political science degree from Columbia and a law degree (magna cum laude) from Harvard. Obama's teaching experience mentioned above.
Point goes to: Obama

I could go on, but you get the idea. Palin has a great deal of experience in the private sector and is, I feel, a great fit for Alaska. At the same time, given her lack of facility with things like Supreme Court decisions and other more nuanced areas of US law, (much less, newspapers) I have no interest in seeing her as the president of the United States. We've already suffered an utter imbecile for 8 years... I've got no stomach for even 4 years of mere moderated ignorance.