Joe Scarborough highly critical of Sarah Palin and suggests GOP should do the same.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In an Op-Ed piece for Politico, Joe Scarborough thinks the GOP should "man-up" and take Sarah Palin down a peg. "Republicans have a problem," Scarborough writes at Politico. "The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected." To make matters worse, Scarborough prods, Palin does all of this while demeaning the legacy of GOP standard-bearers that many hold dear, people such as former presidents Reagan, whom she casually downplayed as "an actor," as well as George H.W. and Barbara Bush, whom she deemed "blue bloods." In a particularly caustic passage, Scarborough seeks to draw a comparison between the legacies of H.W. Bush and Palin:

"I suppose Palin's harsh dismissal of this great man is more understandable after one reads her biography and realizes that, like Bush, she accomplished a great deal in her early 20s. Who wouldn't agree that finishing third in the Miss Alaska beauty contest is every bit as treacherous as risking your life in military combat? Maybe the beauty contestant who would one day be a reality star and former governor didn't win the Distinguished Flying Cross, but the half-termer was selected as Miss Congeniality by her fellow contestants." Source.

Ouch. Sarah Palin's seriousness was questioned as recently in October by none other than Karl Rove, who suggested that a presidential candidate who appeared in a reality television show wouldn't have much gravitas. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speechwriter fired off a few choice words to Palin, calling her a "nincompoop." While many defend St. Palin, suggesting it's the mean ole poopy-pant liberal media that has it "out" for her, there are plenty within the Republican party that also think Sarah is a lot of hot air.

Joe Scarborough's editorial.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Assuming "liberal" = "progressive" for the sake of discussion, you make up 20% of the ideological population (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/conservatives-finish-2009-no-1-ideological-group.aspx). Assuming "progressive" means something further left, you're going to be even smaller.

The reality is that when the liberal party - and the Democratic Party does not represent the right or the center in this nation - is not far enough left for the "progressives," it tells me that the "progressives" aren't really in touch with this country's beliefs much at all. You "deserve representation," sure - good luck getting the rest of us on board, though.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

What exactly do you mean by "not being in touch with" the beliefs of others? You think we don't understand? Just because we don't agree does that somehow invalidate our opinions?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What exactly do you mean by "not being in touch with" the beliefs of others?

I mean that they're way outside the mainstream.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

So? Some of the best ideas have come from out of the mainstream.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's rare, though. Broken clock and such.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Depends on your definition of "rare" I suppose. The founding fathers were hardly mainstream.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And the Founding Fathers certainly weren't "progressive," at least as to how we understand the term today. Groundbreaking and progressive are not synonymous.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Actually they are. This is why conservatives always find themselves on the wrong side of history.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Funny, because the conservatives are the ones on the side of the Founders now. I can't imagine any "progressive" going along with them today.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Says you. I say the Founders at this point are beyond liberal or conservative. There's plenty there for anyone to support, and everyone in this country does. Yes there are finer points that not everyone accepts, but that's something that happens on all sides of the political spectrum.

What you feel we oppose is your strict interpretation of what the Founders stood for, and that's just not the same thing no matter how badly you want to believe it.

Conservatives opposed abolishing slavery, opposed women's suffrage, civil rights, ending the Vietnam War, and that's just off the top of my head. You can slow down progress but you can't stop it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Says you. I say the Founders at this point are beyond liberal or conservative.

Well, says me because the record is as such. I don't see the "progressives" clamoring for smaller, locally-centralized government.

What you feel we oppose is your strict interpretation of what the Founders stood for, and that's just not the same thing no matter how badly you want to believe it.

If "progressives" don't actually oppose that, I'd love to see it.

Conservatives opposed abolishing slavery, opposed women's suffrage, civil rights, ending the Vietnam War, and that's just off the top of my head. You can slow down progress but you can't stop it.

Well, not exactly. And it's hard to call much of how we accomplished those things as "progress," which is part of where you're mistaken.