Sarah Palin: Elements Of Dan Quayle And Richard Nixon

Sarah Palin is now the woman of the hour, with her new book available for sale, her interviews all over television and radio, and her book tour, which began with a large crowd today in Grand Rapids. Michigan.

Millions of Americans seem to be connected to Sarah, but there are many disturbing elements to this adulation.

Sarah Palin is a very attractive woman, in many ways the male Dan Quayle. Quayle was picked over much more qualified candidates for Vice President by the first President Bush, partially because of his good looks which could attract female voters. He proved to be an embarrassing Vice President, and made one pray for President Bush’s health. One time, when Bush was ill, it created a bit of a crisis over the idea that Quayle might become President.

John McCain picked Sarah, despite her thin resume and very mediocre intellect, because her good looks could attract many men and also could appeal to so called “average” Americans who could relate to Sarah as being just like them.

The problem is we should not want “ordinary” Americans in high office! They should be brighter than most of us, as they are our leaders and need to be highly capable. This adulation of Sarah is not based on her substance, but on her being anti intellectual and anti Establishment. Such a person considering running for President is a dangerous moment for our democracy.

However, Palin also resembles Richard Nixon in one important way. They are both exceptional liars, Nixon through so many events in his life but highlighted by Watergate, and Palin, who shows no appreciation for John McCain putting her on the map, as she now spreads myths and lies about the McCain staff, so much so that even McCain, in a very delicate manner, has contradicted her account of the problems in the campaign. Also, both Nixon and Palin love to attack the “liberal elites” and the news media and to see themselves as “victims”. Of course, a tremendous difference would be that Nixon had substance, intellectual brilliance, experience and knowledge, none of which Sarah Palin possesses.

McCain is too much of a gentleman and a decent human being to ever express regret about setting Sarah Palin on the road to stardom, but in the dark of night, somehow, one has to believe he has secret regrets!

8 comments on “Sarah Palin: Elements Of Dan Quayle And Richard Nixon

  1. James November 18, 2009 8:38 pm

    It’s truly a wonder why Liberals keep attacking Sarah Palin. Plus, you equate Sarah Palin with Dan Quayle; you make one glaring mistake; Dan Quayle never had the popularity Sarah Palin has. And yes! Yes she is anti-establishment! Yes, finally an outsider!!!! And who do you think got us into this mess to begin with? You got it, the so called intellectuals, the insiders, and the establishment.

    Sarah Palin is a fresh a breath air, the likes of which Liberals never have seen, coming from a successful woman. This is exactly what the country needs, a person who is not part of the establishment that will bring brevity and common sense to a bloated federal government.

    No, I do not think she is ready to be a president yet, but neither was or is Obama; nevertheless, she will get there. And by the way, way do you guys keep on attacking Sarah Palin? She is out of office and never has given any serious thoughts to running as of yet.
    Humm…A nerve?

  2. Mike November 18, 2009 9:11 pm

    I am looking forward to Dr. Feinman’s reply.

  3. Ronald November 18, 2009 9:59 pm

    James, Sarah Palin is NOT a breath of fresh air–she is a mediocre person who has no clue to how to run this nation. We do not need mediocrity and anti intellectualism in the White House–she has never accomplished anything significant and has demonstrated no depth or vision. There is nothing successful about her, except that she is a rebel, representing those who see government as the enemy, but remember–WE are the government. We are not going to see the federal government disappear, and were that to happen, we would be in far worse shape. And I am not aware that intellectuals resided in the White House under George W. Bush. Understand, Bush is no great intellect, but compared to Sarah, he is brilliant, and that shows you how low down to the gutter we are going when we have people seeing Sarah as a savior. This woman does not read, has never enunciated any issue in detail, and can only blame others for her shortcomings. She did not write her book, as it was ghost written. Instead of enriching herself on other people’s desperation for simple answers, she should go home to Alaska, really get educated on the issues over a period of years, and prove she can do a job without quitting as she has now done twice in Alaska politics. Were we stupid enough to elect her President, the country would truly go down the drain. We need brilliant people, like the Founding Fathers in office–not mediocre, ill informed and uneducated demagogues who appeal to people’s emotions, rather than their reason!

  4. James November 19, 2009 9:48 am

    Ron, funny how you just described Sarah Pail as a demagogue, in doing so, you just described Obama. I hate to break the news to you, but Obama and Biden are no intellectuals, they are modern day demagogues. They are the ones that appealed and still are appealing to the base emotions of the masses to gain power. And any way, no said Sarah Palin was a savior. In fact, if you remember that is what all the intellectuals and the masses and (you) said about Obama. Moreover, Obama said it about himself…Hmmmm…..”The rising of the waters,” ring a bell?

    You liberals really need to get out of the gutter of name calling and mudslinging and really talk about substance issues.

    Moreover, our founding fathers hated government. They knew that it was necessary so they enacted checks and balances; unfortunately Liberals have circumvented the constitution. The founding fathers were for far less government. If they were alive today, and see how the federal government has become all encompassing, (big brother)you would see a rather display, oh what would you call It, a rebellion, a group of anti-intellectuals, much like what England called our founding fathers? But it was true patriotism in their day and still is today. Limited government, for most of them, was there motto.
    But for the totalitarians; more government the better; it has always been that way and it still is today, it just shifts and changes form. More government translates into more control of our lives.

  5. David November 20, 2009 10:02 am

    I don’t believe that all of the founding fathers hated government; they just hated average people participating in the government, such as Sarah Palin. Remember that the Federalist Party was formed on the basis of a broad interpretation of the Constitution and a larger role for the national government than that promoted by the Democratic Republicans. Obviously we consider liberals such as Alexander Hamilton to be more important historically. That’s why we placed him on a ten dollar bill and we relegate the conservative, Thomas Jefferson, to a spot on the nickel.

  6. James November 20, 2009 10:55 am

    Hamilton, even though he was one of the writers of the Federalists Papers, he was really against the Constitution in the long run. For example, he wanted a standing executive for life; in addition he wanted the Federal Government to have veto power over the Sates. In short, he wanted the Sates to be vassal States. There is much more about Hamilton that many people don’t know. You said he is on the ten dollar bill and Jefferson is on a nickel. Jefferson was a two term president, Hamilton never became one. Hamilton was so controversial in his day that even some of the Federalist at the time began to question his real motives. Yes, he was all for the constitution out in the open but as the documents coming from the Constitutional Convention reveal he was a deeply disturbed individual that longed for power. The debate at that Convention was hidden for many years long after it was established. There are only two books that were published forty or so years long after the debate; two different men, that were both at the Convention, one of which was Madison, and I have them both. Therefore, even at that time, Hamilton’s true feels and motives were obscured from the public domain, as it seems still are.

  7. Tate November 20, 2009 5:17 pm

    James, it would be helpful if you clarified your definition of “common sense” – as Palin clearly has none.

    You write:

    “Sarah Palin is a fresh a breath air, the likes of which Liberals never have seen, coming from a successful woman. This is exactly what the country needs, a person who is not part of the establishment that will bring brevity and common sense to a bloated federal government. ”

    Being an individual who does not limit himself based on party affiliation – I am able to see the forest through the trees – which, it appears, you are not.

    Palin in the same sentence with the term intelligent? – give me a break.

    Also, you state that:

    “but Obama and Biden are no intellectuals, they are modern day demagogues.”

    So is every president. Reagan, the actor, would be a great example of this. Additionally, defining “intellectual” would be helpful here – after you show us your Harvard or Syracuse Law Degree.

    You also state that:

    “You liberals really need to get out of the gutter of name calling and mudslinging and really talk about substance issues. ”

    James, I think they have. If anything, Republican’s, whose base is shrinking, who have no clear-cut potential canidate for 2012, and have given us the shakes every time we here the name bush (after dealing with him for 8 years)are the one’s who are mudslinging. One additional thought….now that you have created the demon-child named Palin….and failed to use her correctly to maintain power…how will you combat her when she runs as a third-party canidate?

    James, you seem bright enough to feel the need to defend a group that doesn’t give a rat’s @ss about you. Look at the issues, look at what is right for humanity, lose the agressive & defensive attitude, and vote with your conscience…. Come back from the dark side….. 🙂

  8. James November 20, 2009 5:57 pm

    Tate, I can see clearly you have been brainwashed. And no, I am not defending any party. I believe that the neo-cons, along with the far left have done great harm to this country. In addition, if I went to Harvard or any of the Ivy League schools, I sure wouldn’t brag about it. They died intellectually a long time ago; they are not intellectual honesty, have no intellectual integrity, and any sort of intellectualism. Most of the Ivy schools are schools that brainwash students, with some exceptions. Most modern day liberals, such as yourself, just spit out the same old liberal lines, what has been feed you.

    Again, I do not defend what the neo-cons have done. And I did not like a lot of what Bush did. When it comes to Reagan, it really doesn’t deserve a response to the likes of you.

    Good luck in your endeavors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.