Posted on 01/15/2010 6:04:13 PM PST by reasonisfaith
Ok, I just watched about two minutes of O’Reilly talking to Glenn Beck as both of them outsmarted themselves.
Actually, they were both outsmarted by Sarah Palin. They thought they could suggest Palin was less than qualified for the presidency because she wasn’t specific enough in naming her favorite among the founding fathers.
Both O’Reilly and Beck have been left in the dust by Palin, as many here would expect.
Palin’s answer, showing a general regard for the ideas of the founding fathers rather than focusing on their individual personalities, is in fact consistent with John Adams’ idea that we are a nation of laws, not men. If we jump first to memorialize and immortalize the men behind the ideas, we forsake the ideas. It’s the ideas that matter.
Palin gets it. Beck and O’Reilly don’t.
Why aren’t people talking about her interview last night with Hannity. That was a fantastic give and take and she looked open and engaged for a change. She trusts Hannity.
So, in a way, Beck's interview was very high risk for Palin, much higher than the typical, expected questions would be. She was asked things, she's probably never thought about before, like 'who was your favorite founder?' Why be the same as everyone else? I found the entire conversation fascinating.
“at least some of it comes from the fact that her book sold more copies than all his books combined”
I can believe that with no problem. Envy appears to be the driving force behind everything Goldberg does, whether or not he’s commenting about Palin.
I can hardly agree with a thing you say.
I haven’t decided what I think about Beck yet because I haven’t watched him enough. Your comments seem well reasoned though.
Based on what I saw in that segment, Beck seemed full of himself. But I haven’t watched him enough to have a strong opinion about him.
Although Palin used the word “collectively,” I think she concluded with the George Washington reference to emphasize the fact that the individual always stands out and leads the group, any group.
But my point was to highlight the distinction between knowledge and understanding.
While Beck, and especially O’Reilly, seem to get caught in a meaningless inquiry into knowledge about personalities, Palin’s answer is consistent with that of a person who is focused on the ideas behind the personalities. She understands that we need to be connected with ideas agreed upon among the founding fathers such as private property, individualism, absolute morals and liberty—and that memorizing the personality quirks of Jefferson as compared with Madison is an undertaking completely unrelated to advancing the greatness of America.
Any prominent figure in politics or media who looks first to the importance of personality will also consider, for most of the hours of each day in their life, the importance of their own personality and their own personal power and influence. I think Beck and O’Reilly are both strongly inclined to seat themselves on such a throne while Palin inclines away from it.
In that small segment, Beck and O’Reilly seem to be searching for meaningless facts about personalities. Palin understands it’s only the ideas that really matter.
Put it this way—O’Reilly already thinks he’s King of the Universe.
Beck appears to be drifting towards a similar fantasy.
Remember the debate question of GWB about "your favorite political philosopher"? His honest answer was pooh-poohed and derided by the pseudo-intellectuals, much as O'Reilly seemed to treat Palin's "all of them" response. And those folks who mocked Bush did what O'Reilly did. They opened the window on their own ignorance of the brilliant Jefferson opinions of the philosophy of Jesus.
He stated that Jesus "preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence," that "a system of morals is presented to us [by Jesus], which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man."
He wrote, "His moral doctrines...were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers...and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids," which, Jefferson said, "will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."
Sometimes the "know-it-alls" of today simply reveal their own ignorance when they assume a certain "superiority" over others.
I agree. But you left out BOR is an over-inflated, self absorbed, nacissistic, rude, obnoxious gasbag.
Never met an Aquarian I didn't like. Feb 17 here...;o)
Feb 14th here.
:o)
Beck seems to be focused on principles and ideas and how those principles are being violated, though his treatment is done with humor and gimmicks to gain public attention to the seriousness of the subject.
O'Reilly seems to be less grounded in principles and more oriented toward issues and frivolous commentary.
Palin is more than equipped to deal with either.
To me it's like asking whether I like boxers or briefs......I like both actually.
All of the founders had a influence on the final document. Some got more accolades then others but some already were famous in their own right and they still get the press. I really can't pick a favorite and neither could Palin. I mean really, do I pick the intellectual or the guys with great common sense approaches? Do I pick the one who could turn a phrase or the one who said little but said something?
I found the question to be much like the what news paper do you read baloney that the libs made such a fuss over.
There is nothing to argue about and I hope Palin's FOX gig helps her fend off these moronic assaults on her character. As a voter, I'm not yet likely to support her for POTUS unless I must make that choice, but I feel that she has received ridiculous treatment by the media. She's no Margaret Thatcher, but they both came from humble beginnings politically and grew into the job. She may improve greatly and impress me one day to get that vote. I hope she does. If she does, I will reconsider for sure and I don't think she intends to run in 2012, but the next one may be the ticket..
Oh by the way........O'really is a dufus.
Journalists practice wordsmithing and sophistry, but deep thinking is far beyond the natural abilities of most journalists. O'really was a teacher, which is actually a notch or two lower.
At first, “all of them” seemed a little vague but then she made an excellent point from it in that it was a collection of ideas and principles from men who argued, debated and reasoned from a variety of backgrounds and understandings of history and the place of God and man in governance.
I find it interesting that she chose George Washington who
was more of a doer than a thinker (although he was no slouch in that area).
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.—GW
If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.—GW
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.—GW
Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals.—GW
Never.
Going.
To.
Happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.