While I share the concern of one reader that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin may “not display the broad base policy knowledge one should have for the office of the Vice-Presidency,” she has displayed one thing on the campaign trail that even Barack Obama has not, a presidential temperament in the face of relentless criticism.
Like Ronald Reagan, she doesn’t let such obloquy get under her skin. When Sean Hannity asked her in September about the harsh attacks directed against her in the course of this campaign, she replied that she doesn’t let it get to her:
You know, though, the shots that I’m taking, I know what the truth is and I know what my convictions are and my foundation is. So I’m fine there. I’m fine there.
The shots that perhaps our campaign has taken, it’s nothing compared to the shots that some people across America are taking today. The things that really matter: Somebody worried about losing their house because of Wall Street collapses. Somebody worried about losing their job or being able to pay for their child’s health care coverage or a parent perhaps having lost a son or daughter in battle, those are the shots that matter.
I’m going to keep it all in perspective.
Contrast that with Barack Obama’s reaction to criticism and tough questions. He lost his cool after having to answer eight questions back in March. During the summer, he whined about Republican criticisms which had yet to happen and would never take place. Last month, his campaign threatened legal against the National Rifle Association (NRA) for running ads exposing his record on guns.
The Republican vice presidential nominee accepts criticism with equanimity. The Democratic presidential nominee complains about it and attempts to silence it through legal action.
Given that all leaders experience a lot of flak for their actions, shouldn’t we want an executive who accepts criticism as par for the course rather than one who whines about its unfairness? Which one has more confidence in his ability to lead?
UPDATE: Mary Katharine Ham has more on Barack Obama’s unpresidential problem with criticism. Click on more to read an excerpt:
If Obama were truly a purveyor of a new kind of politics or a decent leader, in any sense of the word, he’d stick a different sentence into his stump speech. Something like, “Hey, everyone chill out. Joe is a man who asked me a question. As presidential candidates, John McCain and I have faced plenty of tough questions. The good citizens who ask those questions don’t deserve to be torn down for their efforts.”
Obama’s frowning upon the practice would go a long way toward quelling the bad practice of vetting every townhall and ropeline questioner as if he were a Supreme Court justice.
But you see, Obama is not a man of new politics or leadership. He is a man who endorses raising the cost of free speech for everyone who disagrees with him. He is a man who sends out Action WIre alerts to mobilize voters to shout down detractors who appear on the radio. He is a man who sends letters to the Department of Justice to ask it to investigate political ads that aren’t even inaccurate, much less criminal.
UP-UPDATE: Mark Steyn shows how she takes criticism in stride:
Tina Fey plays you sort of bubble-headed…
Sarah: “That’s funny. I play her bubble-headed too when I imitate her.
You are far too kind to Obama. He also tried to sic the Justice Department on critics, got his lawyers to threaten Republican donors with civil and criminal prosecution, threatened TV and radio stations with the same, established
goon“truth” squads of prosecutors and lawyers to intimidate anyone who might think of criticizing him. And this is as a candidate! imagine what he would do with real power!Yes, he is a big whiney baby, but its his fascisitic tendencies Im worried about.
Then there’s Bill Clinton. Who cant remember him getting all red in the face and pointing his shaking finger at Chris Wallace for daring to question his legacy as Commander in Chief. Using FBI files and the IRS against his political enemies. Threatening ABC’s broadcast license if they aired “The road to 9/11” or whatever it was called. ABC still wont release it to DVD to this day.
And President Bush (whom liberals ironically labeled as fascistic for 8 years, while simultaneously heaping unprecedented levels of unfettered criticism on him in every medium imaginable) was the same as Palin and Reagan. Never let it get to him. Rose above it. Of course, unlike them, to his detriment, he also didnt refute the criticism.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the Germans ran around calling Jews fascists while electing Nazis to power?
I’m still trying to figure out how Comrade Obama can seriously be called a leader. What kind of leader pisses and moans like he does?
Sarah Palin is one stand-up dame.
What I love about Palin is how she has normal, appropriate person’s reactions to the nutty, yet stinky mess that America’s politics have become.
Obama is going to be a terrible President, and the media is going to cover for him every step of the way – fasten your seatbelts.
Barack Obama is the Ron Burgundy of politics; hopeless without a teleprompter, stuck on himself, a cardboard cutout propped up by people working behind the scenes.
Sarah Palin is Veronica Corningstone, a smart chick who threatens the alpha male. When SNL introduces her as “Tits McGee,” she calmly corrects, “I’m Sarah Palin. Tits McGee is on vacation.”
And soon, all the Obama-bots are reduced to sneering “Caribou Barbie,” which is their version of “Smelly Pirate Hooker.”
Joe Biden is Brick Tamlin. Nuff said.
It’s unbelievable that America is about to elect Obama. But, we’ve seen eight years of Bush administration fecklessness and incompetence on domestic issues, so there it is.
I don’t mean the issues that our nutty leftist media has set up, of course. As has been documented, the Bush administration had a faster and better response to Hurricane Katrina than other administrations had to their hurricanes (the incompetent parts of the response coming Blanco and Nagin)… Never banned or opposed stem cell research (only fetal harvesting of stem cells)… Was right to lower taxes… Made many good judicial appointments… etc.
But they let spending get out of control. They passed insane new entitlements. They made absurd and harmful compromises with top liberals, like No Child Left Behind or immigration policy or Bush’s signature of McCain-Feingold. All with major expenditure of political capital. Meanwhile, Bush’s leadership was well-intended but lame, i.e., totally ineffective, in privatizing Social Security. And, most important from today’s perspective, ineffective in reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In short, Bush achieved far too much on some domestic policies where he should have achieved nothing, and he achieved nothing on some critical domestic issues where he should have paid more attention and achieved much more. Result: A financial crisis that Bush owns.
That is somewhat analogous to Clinton administration fecklessness with our national security in the 1990s. Those people knew about bin Ladin and made some effort to get him, but not nearly enough. They did nothing to tell the country how bad things really were (with al Qaeda). Result: 9-11. But I digress.
Obama should be grateful that the public schools have dumbed down math as much as they have. Does anybody believe Obama can pay for all of his trillions in promised new spending by just taxing the top five per cent?
As for Bush, I hear his defenders saying he’ll go down as another Lincoln or Truman… a president whose greatness was not reflected by his unpopularity during his time in office. I think it will be more likely he’ll be a Lyndon Johnson… another Texan who mismanaged a war abroad while spending recklessly at home.
Wow, in looking at the national security achievements, it’s a tough call because Bush *did* set the right policies in place (other than immigration policy) for engaging and destroying the Islamists. But how much good does it do, if the American people don’t get it? and therefore vote for a guy who (contra Christopher Hitchens) will probably throw it all away?
For all the defense of Palin and poo-pooing liberals and moderates on this site for speculating that she’s anti-equality for gays, you’ve been remarkably silent on her endorsement of a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. While you’re bashing the libs and Obama, why not face the facts about your own party and candidates?
[Is she anti-equality? So? I’m pro-freedom. And please read this blog so you understand why we’re uncomfortable with the notion of “equality.” –Dan]
Speaking of national security, the Republican-Jewish coalition is spending a million dollars to run this ad.
Evidence, please.
I know the guy at the top of Palin’s ticket – McCain – has consistently opposed such amendments. So even if you’re right about Palin (which I’m slightly challenging), her opinion would be subordinate to his.
OK, here it is from just yesterday, Oct. 20: Palin Breaks with McCain on Gay Marriage. A couple notes:
– It’s CBS reporting. Uhhhm, we’ll see.
– Again, McCain’s opinion would rule. McCain is quoted as saying that Federal anti-marriage amendments are
I received my absentee ballot on Thursday and mailed it off Friday. I did not vote for the One.
My partner received his Saturday and last night he voted. I expected him to vote Democrat as he said he has for years. However he admitted he did not.
He voted for McCain/Palin not because he particularly likes them but in his words “I do not like the cult-like religion that has sprung up around him” and he mentioned how his followers allow no criticism of him-much like in Islam. To him its a bit creepy.
I found the video of Obama speaking to Joe the plumber and he did not like the spread the wealth phrase at all.
I can’t help wonder if, aside from the socialist angle, the “spread the wealth around” comment rings to a lot of people like the catchphrase of a typical corrupt, big-city politician. When they say “spread the wealth around,” it’s usually to friends and cronies. I wonder if that phrase strikes suburban voters the same way.
Palin is opposed to gay marriage. If gay marriage is the single issue upon which your vote pivots, then Palin is a deal breaker. Unless, of course, you can accept that your single issue will be placed on hold for at least a term of office. I have not heard or read anything of Palin making a campaign issue of confronting the gay marriage issue.
Palin in more qualified to be President than Barry Barack The One Obama. She has actually worked with working people and dealt with everyday people with everyday problems. Barry Barack The One Obama has never been a part of the world of work where lunch pails, sanding, turning a wrench, cleaning, entering data, packaging goods, setting up and taking down, serving and clearing, planting, painting, trimming, buffing, pressing, or pampering are the business of the day.
Barry Barack The One Obama is a cold, cold fish with no human experience. He is the sum of his assumptions and a litany of gripes about what could have been. In my world of work, he is an agitator and a smart aleck with plenty of talk and no action. When I have had to deal with his type, I give them a task and when they try to redefine it onto someone else’s back, I wave good-bye to them. The Barry Barack The One Obama persona is best suited for the University where they can hold sway over a small tribe of cult members who go drifting with them.
Barry Barack The One Obama is a radical charismatic who has largely associated with other radical charismatics. He is the perfect emblem of the extreme left. All talk and smoke and mirrors. If he succeeds, we will soon be watching the implosion of the liberal left as they all storm the treasury in a gigantic pork feeding frenzy.
Barry Barack The One Obama will stand behind the curtain pulling his levers and blowing steam and commanding them to be orderly. He will act the dictator in an administration where the satraps are in control. Pelosi and Reid are already positioning themselves for the legislative branch control of the agenda. Barry Barack The One Obama is just their useful idiot.
So ht, how does the game end? What happens to the nation, in the next 4 to 12 years?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 10/21/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
While you’re bashing the libs and Obama, why not face the facts about your own party and candidates?
Given that gay Democrats and the Human Rights Campaign have endorsed and given money to FMA supporters and called them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, exactly what facts should one be facing?
Furthermore, these charges are rather amusing coming from those whose candidate opposes gay marriage, travels with promoters of ex-gay therapy, endorses and supports pastors who oppose gay marriage, receives the endorsement and support of demagogues who call gays “filthy”, and himself says that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays.
#17: “While you’re bashing the libs and Obama, why not face the facts about your own party and candidates?”
Yeah, NDT! How can you criticize liberals and ignore the undeniable facts about your own party?! Your candidates have big giant RRRRRRs right after their names! What more do you need?!
I’d like to ditto “American Elephant,” ever since Bill Clinton there’s been some scary stuff going on with the Democrats. I also hear Obama’s campaign is top heavy with ex-Clinton staffers. I’m a big believer in human rights, but if the Dems standup for gays the same way they standup for women and the unborn, well who needs ’em? There’s a big difference between social issues, and socialism. Sarah Palin is taking huge hits just for being Sarah. And at least Gay Patriot isn’t afraid to show compassion. Some things transcend politics. But politics is strange. Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows how strange. I noticed it for real in the 1990s. As you may recall, Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the education president, yet never boasts his accomplishments, and for good reason: http://theseedsof9-11.com
yeah, sarah palin really handles criticism well:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/105614/_palin_complains:_my_first_amendment_rights_are_threatened_by_criticism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/07/palin-denounces-her-criti_n_142267.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/mccain-camp-levels-charge_n_123257.html
that’s what i found in 30 seconds.
Bob, of course you found such stuff in 30 seconds; you just looked to left-wing web-sites, eager to trash the distinguished Governor of the great state of Alaska.
Interesting how obsessed you are with us. This post went up well over three months ago.
Trolling our archives to take us on?