Palin Called a Spade a Spade

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Dec 29, 2008
19,675
4,731
280
Just three weeks ago, I was writing in the Ottawa Citizen against niceness. I have pursued the theme recently with praise (sometimes backhanded) not only for the politics, but for the tone, of such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin in the United States. They are by no means the only practitioners of what we'll call the "not nice" style in contemporary politics. Newt Gingrich is usually mentioned in such dispatches; and I could list a selection of Barack Obama's "policy czars" with demonstrated shoot-from-the-lip propensities. But I would like to preserve a "nice" (in the logical sense) distinction between candour and thuggery.

Candour is when you tell a truth that is disturbing, in language so unambiguous that persons in polite company will not want to hear you. It is a way to lose the respect of the genteel -- of those who are "respectable" in the shallowest sense. Rude language is quite unnecessary to this end: the hard truth itself, spoken plainly and publicly, will give sufficient offence.

Thuggery is unrelated to this. It consists not of candid argument but of naked intimidation. It may be done crassly -- for instance, by the union thugs who have begun to appear at U.S. townhall meetings, to confront opponents of the Democrats' health-care agenda. Or it may be done smoothly, with the politically correct gesture, that conveys the threat of later reprisal against anyone who utters the contrary, "incorrect" thought. A good example would be the "[email protected]" e-mail address that was set up on the official White House website, to which Obama supporters across the country were invited to report "fishy" opposition to that health-care agenda.

And "niceness" is something else again, usually allied with hypocrisy. For one can be very selectively nice -- outraged, scandalized, breathtaken with surprise, when Richard Nixon was caught compiling an "enemies list." Yet perfectly indifferent when Barack Obama advertises for input to compile his.

How many "nice" people I know, who casually asserted that a certain George W. Bush was mentally retarded, resembled a monkey, and was guilty of war crimes. Suddenly the same people have "had it up to here" with squalid personal attacks on his successor.



RealClearPolitics - Palin Called a Spade a Spade
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just three weeks ago, I was writing in the Ottawa Citizen against niceness. I have pursued the theme recently with praise (sometimes backhanded) not only for the politics, but for the tone, of such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin in the United States. They are by no means the only practitioners of what we'll call the "not nice" style in contemporary politics. Newt Gingrich is usually mentioned in such dispatches; and I could list a selection of Barack Obama's "policy czars" with demonstrated shoot-from-the-lip propensities. But I would like to preserve a "nice" (in the logical sense) distinction between candour and thuggery.

Candour is when you tell a truth that is disturbing, in language so unambiguous that persons in polite company will not want to hear you. It is a way to lose the respect of the genteel -- of those who are "respectable" in the shallowest sense. Rude language is quite unnecessary to this end: the hard truth itself, spoken plainly and publicly, will give sufficient offence.

Thuggery is unrelated to this. It consists not of candid argument but of naked intimidation. It may be done crassly -- for instance, by the union thugs who have begun to appear at U.S. townhall meetings, to confront opponents of the Democrats' health-care agenda. Or it may be done smoothly, with the politically correct gesture, that conveys the threat of later reprisal against anyone who utters the contrary, "incorrect" thought. A good example would be the "[email protected]" e-mail address that was set up on the official White House website, to which Obama supporters across the country were invited to report "fishy" opposition to that health-care agenda.

And "niceness" is something else again, usually allied with hypocrisy. For one can be very selectively nice -- outraged, scandalized, breathtaken with surprise, when Richard Nixon was caught compiling an "enemies list." Yet perfectly indifferent when Barack Obama advertises for input to compile his.

How many "nice" people I know, who casually asserted that a certain George W. Bush was mentally retarded, resembled a monkey, and was guilty of war crimes. Suddenly the same people have "had it up to here" with squalid personal attacks on his successor.



RealClearPolitics - Palin Called a Spade a Spade


Nice write up - and confirms my view that Palin has dominated Obama on what was Obama's own issue. She might actually be as tough as those who have long supported her say.

Now we must see if Obama has any real toughness and if he can reassert control within his own party....
 
Just out of curiosity..........

How the fuck is the pitbull bitch from Alaska going to be able to call a spade a spade, when the stupid **** doesn't even have any fucking idea of what the truth is outside her own deluded bullshit?

Pain in the ass Palin isn't smart enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to make people like her.

She's a quitter bimbo.
 
I agree with pretty much everything you say in your post except for the "union thugs who have begun to appear at the U.S. townhall meetings..." Two things I don't agree with in this statement: (1) I don't think it's really true. (2) Even if it is true, the people there have a right to voice their opinion (organized or not) and disagree, politely, or strongly, with what is being said at the meeting. That's called Freedom of Speech. This tactic has been used by the liberal left for years and it was "acceptable" and now just because somebody feels that the Republicans (a statement which I don't agree with) are doing it suddenly it is "unacceptable". Talk about hipocracity... Other then these statements, I think your post is right on the money.
 
Nice write up - and confirms my view that Palin has dominated Obama on what was Obama's own issue. She might actually be as tough as those who have long supported her say.

Now we must see if Obama has any real toughness and if he can reassert control within his own party....
It has been amusing watching the Palin haters yell like dopey kids about this, still trying to bring back October & November of last year.

Mrs Palin spoke out on two parts of this bill, and now both are off the table.

They can insult her, spin bitch and whine all they want, but she got results vs a President with a fillibuster proof senate and control of the house.

That is a fine accomplishment.
 
Nice write up - and confirms my view that Palin has dominated Obama on what was Obama's own issue. She might actually be as tough as those who have long supported her say.

Now we must see if Obama has any real toughness and if he can reassert control within his own party....
It has been amusing watching the Palin haters yell like dopey kids about this, still trying to bring back October & November of last year.

Mrs Palin spoke out on two parts of this bill, and now both are off the table.

They can insult her, spin bitch and whine all they want, but she got results vs a President with a fillibuster proof senate and control of the house.

That is a fine accomplishment.

Right on.
 
I'm curious to see how the OP would distinguish "civility" from "niceness". You say that there are unpleasant truths that, despite the fact that they are hard to hear, need to be said. I get that.

But to say that people can't have a civil discourse is utterly false. To profess that you're "just tellin' it like it is" doesn't excuse atrocious behavior. It's in your OWN best interest to find the right mix between intense and idiotic, even if what you're saying is the truth.

I totally agree, btw, that Pelosi is a complete hypocrite for espousing disruption by her side and denouncing it when it's her opponents. Disruption serves NO ONE.

The original post seems to be a huge rationalization for being a jerk. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to see how the OP would distinguish "civility" from "niceness". You say that there are unpleasant truths that, despite the fact that they are hard to hear, need to be said. I get that.

But to say that people can't have a civil discourse is utterly false. To profess that you're "just tellin' it like it is" doesn't excuse atrocious behavior. It's in your OWN best interest to find the right mix between intense and idiotic, even if what you're saying is the truth.

I totally agree, btw, that Pelosi is a complete hypocrite for espousing disruption by her side and denouncing it when it's her opponents. Disruption serves NO ONE.

The original post seems to be a huge rationalization for being a jerk. Just my 2 cents.

In fact, Palin was quite civil in her criticisms of HR 3200 although she stated her concerns about what some saw as health care rationing that was implicit in the bill in dramatic terms. It is her critics who continue to be uncivil.

If you went to a townhall meeting in which the Congressman would only restate his predetermined talking points when confronted with difficult questions, would it be wrong of you to shout out that he was being unresponsive to important questions if that were the only way to draw attention to what he was doing?
 
I'm curious to see how the OP would distinguish "civility" from "niceness". You say that there are unpleasant truths that, despite the fact that they are hard to hear, need to be said. I get that.

But to say that people can't have a civil discourse is utterly false. To profess that you're "just tellin' it like it is" doesn't excuse atrocious behavior. It's in your OWN best interest to find the right mix between intense and idiotic, even if what you're saying is the truth.

I totally agree, btw, that Pelosi is a complete hypocrite for espousing disruption by her side and denouncing it when it's her opponents. Disruption serves NO ONE.

The original post seems to be a huge rationalization for being a jerk. Just my 2 cents.

In fact, Palin was quite civil in her criticisms of HR 3200 although she stated her concerns about what some saw as health care rationing that was implicit in the bill in dramatic terms. It is her critics who continue to be uncivil.

If you went to a townhall meeting in which the Congressman would only restate his predetermined talking points when confronted with difficult questions, would it be wrong of you to shout out that he was being unresponsive to important questions if that were the only way to draw attention to what he was doing?


:clap2:
 
Repugnicans don't like unions. It screws with their greed.
O please.

As if Unions are the archangels sent from God for the American workers...

I didn't say that unions were the archangels, I said that the GOP hates unions because it fucks with their greed.

Personally? I think the idea of a union is a good thing, as it makes it easier to keep the working conditions and wages fair with how the company is doing.

However........sometimes they get too big and ask for too much, which is what happened to GM.
 
Repugnicans don't like unions. It screws with their greed.
O please.

As if Unions are the archangels sent from God for the American workers...

I didn't say that unions were the archangels, I said that the GOP hates unions because it fucks with their greed.

Personally? I think the idea of a union is a good thing, as it makes it easier to keep the working conditions and wages fair with how the company is doing.

However........sometimes they get too big and ask for too much, which is what happened to GM.
The way you're "OH LYKE OMGZ UNIUNZ RAWKZ ANDZ REPUBS R LYKE SO GREEDY"...kinda why I had my "archangel" theory.

And let's say that while unions may have their "angel" side...they also have their "devil" side...and there's more of a "devil" side than an "angel" one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top