Comments on The 7-10: Palmer on Politics: On Shirley Sherrod and Sarah Palin's Missed Opport...

Does having one's "facts" refuted...

2010-07-30T02:54:45.976-04:00
Does having one's "facts" refuted by indisputable evidence only make some hold on more tightly to their "facts?"

When the word "facts" has to be put between quotation marks in the way you did above, what you're really talking about is opinions. Over years of observing radical-right types, I've learned it's common for them to equate their opinions with other people's facts. This makes rejecting and/or refuting facts convenient for them, because it's understood everyone has a right to their own opinion. They seem to interpolate this to mean their opinions are just as valid and worthy as anyone else's facts, because when others' facts don't jibe with what they believe, they reject those facts as just so much of someone else's opinion.

Now, if that sounds like nonsense out of Alice Beyond the Looking Glass, you're right. But that's how it works.

To your question No. 1, IMO the answer is no. I think it would undermine her standing with many of her erstwhile boosters.

The answer to question No. 2 is yes.

Look at what happens to Republicans who try to show their independence. Remember former Sen. Chuck Hagel, who wanted to run for president? There was a time when he was considered a rising star in the GOP and future presidential material. That was before Gingrich, Armey, DeLay, Norquist and the gang took the Reagan revolution to the next step. Hagel put feelers out for money and other support and quickly learned he couldn't get arrested if he threw a brick through a store window. He was entirely too moderate, too willing to work across the aisle.

Now there's ex-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. Again, he was too moderate, too willing to work with Democrats in an effort to get some things done that Floridians need to have done.

Republicans, certainly at the national level, have shown they care very little about governing. They want power and control, and the chance to funnel money and advantage to those who fund and otherwise support them.

SWA, Do you think that having one's "fac...

2010-07-28T15:34:42.938-04:00
SWA,

Do you think that having one's "facts" refuted by undisputable evidence only makes some hold on more tightly to their "facts?" In the case of Palin, for example, the "death panels" meme was clearly debunked, but she and her supporters continued to insist that death panels were in the HCR bill.

In the case of the Sherrod imbroglio (which I've had enough of, by the way), I would make two arguments: 1) if the logic of my original paragraph is true, then would people who loved Sarah Palin continue to love her even if she was going to bat for "the other side?," and 2) if the logic of my original paragraph is not true, then would this suggest that people (e.g., Sherrod's detractors) are driven more by their hard right ideology than by any opinion leader, even if that opinion leader is Palin herself?

If only instinctively, Palin knows very well the l...

2010-07-25T22:38:00.055-04:00
If only instinctively, Palin knows very well the largest component of her fans is made up of people heavily motivated by resentment and suspicion.

Palin fans resent changes that have taken place in society over the past half century. They resent integration as something hated liberals got courts to jam down their throats. They resent that women can choose to have an abortion, that school busing was used to force "mixing" of the races, that public schools can't be used to inculcate their religious beliefs in all children. They resent laws that in any way interfere with what they see as the Constitution's guarantee of unlimited and unfettered gun rights. Affirmative action is to them just reverse discrimination.

Environmentalism to them is just an unnecessary liberal power play, to create higher taxes and grow meddlesome government. In their view it results only in complications and expense for business, and higher energy costs for consumers.

These resenters believe – mistakenly – that the MSM are liberal in outlook and purpose. That makes the media they don't control their enemies. They believe that largely because they have a command-and-control mindset that says if you're not actively, completely with us, you're against us.

So, I believe that in some corner of her undisciplined, opportunistic mind, Palin realizes that if she were to stick up for Sherrod, crossing Rush Limbaugh and some others of his ilk in the process, her stock would go down with him, with the conservative Republican base and with most of the people who pay to hear her speak and stand in line to get into the half of a book-signing event she's willing to endure.