A fair and balanced discussion of Sarah Palin.

By Ted Belman

One of the most intellectual political programs on Canadian TV is The Agenda with Steve Paikin.

The Sarah Palin effect: From defeat to dominance? The never-ending fascination with Sarah Palin.

This is the best discussion of Sarah Palin that I have heard. Very balanced. But I feel that they are wrong in a number of things. I don’t fault her for being narrow cast or polarizing. She is building her support first than will parley it.

I just read a defence of her intellectualism on Texas4Sarah which makes a good case for her smarts.

That Sarah Palin is intellectually curious is a fact that she has proven time and again. She been photographed holding one of her two copies of Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, and lest one believe that book was nothing more than a prop, Gov. Palin has cited Thomas Sowell, the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon, Dr. Stuart Weinstein of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Thomas L. DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute, and a number of Heritage Foundation scholars in her op-eds on Facebook and in newspapers from The Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post.

In her arguments, she has challenged and refuted President Obama and no small number of his surrogates, from Vice President Joe Biden to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel on issues from energy security to health care rationing. She has been praised for her intelligence by politicos from Charlie Black to Newt Gingrich, pundits from Fred Barnes to Camile Paglia, and intellectuals from Victor Davis Hanson to Yuval Levin.

    May 10, 2010 | 3 Comments »

    Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

    Leave a Reply

    3 Comments / 3 Comments

    1. I didn’t learn much from the discussion except that Crittenden is a cretin or cretiness who is a classic catty broad. She however made the only salient comment noteworthy about Palin in the discussion. “With Palin you either lover her or hate her and that is the worst thing a politician

      or one seeking public office can have” as opposed to just a public personality who has a seizable but minority following. She as a politician

      would be too divisive. “Her poll numbers do not reflect a large swath of American popular support either”.

      In the end it matters less what ea. of us think, it is a matter of which politician has the best chance of beating Obama and until other

      Republicans declare their intent to run we can’t gage or compare to see who has the best chance.

      She is better scripted like Obama than off the cuff as opposed to Bush who was better as himself unscripted. He was actually quite entertaining.

      That doesn’t mean he was qualified or presidential stuff, yet was elected twice. Not very complimentary to the American people, their system or

      their collective wisdom. In a country of over three hundred million people. no one can tell me that there aren’t better choices than Obama, the

      2 Bushes and either Clintons?

    2. That Sarah Palin is intellectually curious is a fact that she has proven time and again.

      Conversely, Barack Obama is content to recite discredited leftist cant.

    3. Ted

      You ask for a fair and a balanced discussion on Sarah Palin. We need to have a fair and a balanced discussion on everything because the future of Jews and consequently all people rest on exactly that.

      But despite having many fine principled qualities i seriously do not believe you are the person to lead such a discussion.

      That is because although your parents were socialists you were brought up inside the womb of American capitalism in its most jingoist period (post war capitalist boom) and this despite your good intentions shows.

      Of course treat Palin with fairness, and that is why in an article on 4international I thought that she had a progressive position towards Jews in settlements in Yesha (I do not like the word “settlements”)

      So you never actually can untie the connjections with American capitalism.

      But it is precisely this capitalism which is in such an historical crisis.

      America to survive needs oil. Israel has none. Israel is bluntly sacrificed. Israel has always been sacrificed which is the meaning of the Gil White research. It is just that now in control is a man who takes extreme delight, that is Obama is an antisemite, he hates Jews in the way that the Palestine Solidarity hates Jews, throught he medium of hating Israel, the modern antisemitism.

      I asked for you, Spencer and Geller to address precisely this. You refused. Simple as that.

      It is the “why” that even Gil White could not address because sad to say he has his own agenda here and it is not really to pursue historical truth.

      As for Yamit82. Despite much good research I have no confidence in him. Ayn Reagan to me is such a distorted personality, I mean defending Ronald Reagan AGAINST Yamit, that does take committment!

      Cast your mind back Ted. Sharon had decided to turf all Jews out of Gaza. Likud held a conference and decided absolutely not. Sharon was at the head of Likud. Sharon goes ahead, thumbs his nose at his own party. That party did nothing (They had to expel Sharon as a minimum) That was the moment that Likud as a serious leadership force ceased to exist.

      You see ted people and parties in this cruel political world and life only get the one chance. That was the moment when Likud blew it for ever more. Buty it was also the moment of great test for Feiglin and he blew it too at that precise moment because he remained inside the Likud, instead of taking a principled position saying

      1. because you have not been able to expel Sharon then you are no longer a leadership to lead the Jews

      2. setting up his own independent party ON THAT BASIS

      What a lesson that would have been AT THAT TIME for those especially religious Jewish youth I remember who were travelling great distances conversiong with IDF youth against the withdrawal.

      AT THAT MOMENT Feiglin lost his chance.

      Yamit82 lost his chance also on another issue, that of Georgia, either the Russian forces were imperialist, or else the US forces were imperialist, but you cannot say they both were.

      Yamit chose the former and in doing so quite explicitely he lined up on the side of the US Imperialists. Not surprising then he is a bosom buddy of Reagan on this site.

      Does this enlighten you Randy? Actually just my point of view which happens to be tied in with the true Trotskyist tradition.

      By all means Ted investigate Palon fairly. But not at the expense of the past historical truth. I would rather that somebody organizes a reprint of the Gil White and Norland analyses and spread this far and wide especially in America and Israel.