Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide (good, from NY Times)

New York Times ^ | September 9, 2011 | Anand Giridharadas

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Maybe, just maybe, they are starting to get it. At least some of it.

[Steamburg]

Somehow when I see this in the Slimes, it feels like one side of the love affair McQuig had with the Gray Lady leading up to the 2008 election. I kind of doubt Gov. Palin will reciprocate.
It smells like they have mixed enough truth into the article in an attempt to have Sarah take out Perry before he can crush Barack.
Truth is a tactic that Barack should have studied before his last speech.

[Logical me]

Governor Palin is right on. If she runs, the political class of both parties will be shaking in their boots. She has nailed them as more interested in their elite positions than the people they serve.

[vicar7]

Governor Palin is right on. If she runs, the political class of both parties will be shaking in their boots. She has nailed them as more interested in their elite positions than the people they serve.

Gold Star for you methinks he’s got it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

The Slimes is trying to pretend she's calling for campaign finance reform when in fact she is calling for abolishing the corporate income tax, so that there is no quid pro quo for the corporate class to exchange with the political class.

[Jim Scott]

Without getting into speculation on the motivations of the New York Times to publish a respectful article that finds 'gravitas' in a Sarah Palin speech, I'll just note that Palin is clearly looking at the entire U.S. political universe, it's failings and the solutions. I agree with her observations and sincerely hope that she decides to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Her candidacy would shake the very foundations of the political left as well as the GOP establishment. Her election could begin the process of restoring America to where it needs to be following decades of depredations by the political class and recently, the deliberate undermining of Americas economy by Barack Hussein Obama.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

****“corporate crony capitalism.” ****

Hence, today's WSJ article by Gigot.

[JaguarXKE]

I just saw a pig fly past my window!

[GOP Poet]

exactly. of course he doesn’t probably yet realize these were the principles of the founding Fathers.

[RobbyS]

Sarah is a traditional Republican, the kind that used to be produced in the Midwest, and still are, if I may judge by the governors of Ohio and Wisconsin. But just read the writings of Lincoln. There is not much new in why Sarah is saying. The civil was was, after all, caused in part by a falling out of the plutocrats of the Northeast and the slavocrats of the South. But it was fought by the plainfolk of North and South.

[RobbyS]

Well, I hope she chooses to work for the nomination in the Republican Party.

[colorado tanker]

It’s an online column, but I agree, some heads must have exploded over there. :-))

[Sola Veritas]

“Her candidacy would shake the very foundations of the political left as well as the GOP establishment. Her election could begin the process of restoring America to where it needs to be following decades of depredations by the political class and recently, the deliberate undermining of Americas economy by Barack Hussein Obama.”

I am NOT a Palin supporter, per se - I’m not a detractor either. But I fully agree with what you wrote. The last debate tells me she really needs to be in this election...even if she doesn’t win the nomination.

Nice to see someone in the press see more than a characature when looking at Palin.

[nathanbedford]

Hold on folks, the author is praising Sarah Palin not for what she said but for what she did not say and I am confident would never say.

A few examples:

The author would have us believe that Sarah Palin is breaking free of conservatism and moving into Midwestern populism. He summarizes her speech in part as follows:

"Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private)." But Sarah said nothing of the kind. Her criticism is strictly limited to crony capitalism as she defines it which is the farming of the government by private enterprise in concert with corrupt public officials who broker these deals. There is nothing anywhere that I read in her speech which decries bigness for its own sake. A transcript of her speech can be found here:

Sarah's speech

Palin's criticism of crony capitalism is not a criticism of capitalism but of cronyism.

Freepers on this thread have quoted with approval the article (repeat article not Sarah Palin) as follows:

"The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market. "

I find that paragraph to be almost incomprehensible. But no matter, because in the very next paragraph the author tells us what he (not Sarah) means:

"What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time. "

Sarah said no such thing. The author is subtly attempting to pass off his own ideas as Sarah's. Palin explicitly limited her criticism to government, corporations, and politicians who corruptly act in concert, who engage in cronyism. There is nothing in her remarks to justify the conclusion that she believes that corporations acting alone, that is without a corrupt and crony connection to government, "jeopardizes... human flourishing."

The author compounds his sins in the next paragraph:

"Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism. "

Ms. Palin is hinting at no such thing. It is a pure fiction on the part of the author.

The travesty continues:

"On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; "

Here the author, not content with distorting Sarah Palin into a populist, now tries transmogrifying Sarah Palin from what she is, a good government conservative, into some sort of radical anti-globalist.

I invite any Freeper who has applauded this article or who thinks it marks some sort of awakening to righteousness on the part of the New York Times to read Sarah Palin's speech and point to anything that substantiates this author's contentions.

I invite readers to consult the portion of Palin's speech in which she outlines remedies and find a recommendation that deals with private enterprise not for its corrupt connection to government but for its inherent bigness. It is not there. If she is railing against bigness in private capitalism as the author contends it is surprising that she offers no solution for it.

Sarah Palin is not populist and she is not strictly an anti-globalist; she is as I have described her, a good government conservative. That is plenty good enough for me. I am content with the real thing.

[nathanbedford]

Try this link for Sarah’s speech:

http://hillbuzz.org/2011/09/04/full-text-of-governor-sarah-palins-indianola-iowa-speech-on-september-3rd-2011/#more-35439

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I caught all that. Trying to pretend she's for campaign finance reform to "get the money out of politics," when really she is advocating abolishing the corporate income tax so that there is no need on the part of corporations to purchase elected officials.

I'm surprised the guy's hair didn't catch on fire when he heard her say that.

[okie01]

Proving once again:

Never trust anything written in the New York Times

If they claim the sky is blue, look out the window and check it for yourself.

[Kirkwood]

She is a populist. Her favorite movie is about populism. Did you read her books?

[nathanbedford]

citations please.

[bigoil]

No...They see Sarah as a WINNER!!!