« Become part of the solution | Main | Shop and help fight cancer »

October 12, 2008

Sarah Palin’s debate wink

What’s wrong with cute is the same thing that is wrong with profane.

Diane Stafford was very thorough in pointing out the downside of Sarah Palin’s wink and folksy manner of speech (10/9, Business, “Let’s not wink at careless gesture”).

It would be nice to look past the superficial aspects of a candidate’s appearance or speech or behavior — not to mention race or age or gender — and focus on the content of their character and ideas. But for most of us, surface matters, speech matters and behavior matters.

When protestors at Kent State University in May 1970 were vilified as subhuman and shot by the Ohio National Guard, I was shocked. I laid the blame on the narrow-mindedness of the pro-war “adult” generation.

Now that I am 65, I know that the grooming habits, drug use, “free love” and profanity of some of the protestors gave excuses to those who despised dissent anyway.

Let us try to focus on the issues and the leadership strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. It would help if they would show us their true depth.

Phil Rhoads
Overland Park

Diane Stafford’s recent column chastising Sarah Palin for her wink during the vice presidential debate officially raises this non-issue to the level of absurdity.

To Ms. Stafford and all who would characterize the gesture as that of a red state Mata Hari, let the record show that Palin explicitly directed the wink and accompanying greeting to her father, who was seated in the audience.

If your preferred rhetorical style is Harvard-educated gravitas, I respect your choice. But to confuse colloquial expression and being plainspoken for a lack of professionalism or credibility is more than misguided. It’s prejudiced.

Rick Lucas
Overland Park

Diane Stafford’s comments were so true. After a long struggle by professional women to advance in the business world, it is unbelievable that someone as unprofessional as Sarah Palin would be considered by anyone as a good pick for vice president of the United States. But then, John McCain is an old boy from the era of women being considered tokens.

Barbara Weians
Parkville

Comments

wunderwood

MY GOVERNMENT IS MY WORST ENEMY. I'M GOING TO FIGHT THEM WITH ANY MEANS AT HAND.

THE QUOTE IS FROM JOE VOGLER, the raging anti-American who founded the ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY, the very same SECESSIONIST party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for SEVEN YEARS and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier THIS year. Is Krauthammer worried about THAT association? No. But Krauthammer doesn't care about real threats, only about getting McCain elected at any cost.

CHECK THIS - PALIN SAID TO AIP: "Keep up the good work, and God bless you."

SARAH PALIN WANTS OUR FLAG TO HAVE 49 STARS? WTF is WRONG with Republicans??? Are Republicans just about winning at any cost? This is the political party gave us EIGHT YEARS of BUSH and they are back for MORE.

Sarah Palin?s husband, Todd, was a member the Alaskan Independence Party working for Alaska to secede from the United States. Todd Palin registered in 1995 until 2002 when he registered as "undeclared" while his wife ran for office. She sleeps with a man who is committed to the idea of destroying the unity of the United States.

Sarah Palin and 'first dudes' have a political alliance with a TERRORIST WHO WAS MURDERED IN 1993 DURING "A PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES SALE GONE BAD."

Todd Palin joined this political party two years later.

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government? And I won?t be buried under their damn flag," - Joe Vogler in 1991, Founder of the Alaska Independence Party.

I am not concerned about some stupid wink from this woman. I am concerned about her associations with radical terrorists buying plastic explosives!

ALASKA FIRST! ALASKA ALWAYS!

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, FINE. LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF.

Country First? You BETCHA!!

Engineer

Marctnts
I do not like the present situation, but it is what it is. If banks are to be helped out of their present situation, and Congress has decided that they are, what are the alternatives? I would assume we all wish for some arrangement in which there is a chance for the treasury to recover at least a part of the funds advanced. Based on the situation as it exists, what sort of arrangement do you favor?

Marctnts

Engineer,

"...only preferred, non-voting stock and provisions are made for..."

Don't hurt yourself with those mental gymnastics. If the democrats had proposed anything CLOSE to this, you would be livid. Just because it's republican doesn't mean it's right. You always seem very concerned with capitalistic ideals, but because this is a GOP administration, you're willing to accept one of the biggest socialistic steps since Social Security?

Simple,

I saw the $25 billion for "retooling and alternative research", and yeah, it made me mad. What I was talking about, however, was the "new great idea" for Uncle Sam to take ownership in struggling institutions. No matter how my friend Engineer twists his thinking to make it okay, we will have a partially nationalized banking industry.
Next year will we have a partially nationalized auto industry? How about the airlines, I always wanted to play Howard Hughes.

Simple_Jack

marc
auto industry already got their bailout. problem is, nobody seemed to notice

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/09/24/a-25-billion-lifeline-for-gm-ford-and-chrysler.html

Engineer

Marctnts
So long as the government takes only preferred, non-voting stock and provisions are made for the institution to buy the stock back, I see no immediate problems.

Marctnts

"...because I believe anything he proposes will be within the limits of a capitalistic society."

Engineer,

What are your thoughts on the current proposal by the administration for the government to take an equity stake in private banks? A nationalization of the banking industry, even on a partial level, seems to be a very socialistic step to take. I haven't heard either candidate take a definitive stand one way or the other on this.

Bottom line, I'm afraid we're opening a door (with the blessing of both democrats AND republicans) that we won't be able to shut. What happens when the auto industry begs for a bail-out next year? Do we, the taxpayers, become shareholders in Ford and GM?

I think it's a very dangerous road we're going down, and both candidates seem more concerned with scoring "sound-bite" points than discussing the long-term ramifications of our current strategy.

Marctnts

"...because I believe anything he proposes will be within the limits of a capitalistic society."

Engineer,

What are your thoughts on the current proposal by the administration for the government to take an equity stake in private banks? A nationalization of the banking industry, even on a partial level, seems to be a very socialistic step to take. I haven't heard either candidate take a definitive stand one way or the other on this.

Bottom line, I'm afraid we're opening a door (with the blessing of both democrats AND republicans) that we won't be able to shut. What happens when the auto industry begs for a bail-out next year? Do we, the taxpayers, become shareholders in Ford and GM?

I think it's a very dangerous road we're going down, and both candidates seem more concerned with scoring "sound-bite" points than discussing the long-term ramifications of our current strategy.

Engineer

Jim
The questions have never been answered because they can't be. There is no possible answer within the limits of what Obama has said. And by not answering you are admitting that. I am not concerned about what McCain will do because I believe anything he proposes will be within the limits of a capitalistic society.

Jim

Eng,

You keep asking questions that have been answered time and time again, and ignore questions you can't answer. Simply ducking legitimate questions about McCain's scattershot and unrealistic economic plan (and Palin's corruption and dishonesty) by saying we're "running scared" or throwing out debunked talking points doesn't work. Sorry to tell you.

TinaMcG

My husband keeps ranting about the real reason Sarah Palin was picked by McCain, and he wonders why the media never brings it up.

She was picked because of her looks. Period. After hearing her speak just once, I realized he was right. It was a very cheesy and insulting political stunt that has failure written all over it. With any luck, there won't be enough wingnuts able to find their way to the polls on November 4th, and we can forget all about Palin.

Engineer

Jim
How will Obama carry out his promises? How can he reduce the Federal Income Tax paid by 95% of the people when 40% pay no FIT? He says more funds are required for education. As he is beholding to the NEA and other unions I assume he means "pour more money into the failed intercity school systems". We all saw how well that worked in the case of the KCMO school district. And where will the money come from? And if Insurance Companies have to accept preexisting conditions, what does that do to rates? And why have coverage until you get some serious condition? I have read his web sites. There are only aims and objectives there.

Jim

You're right, Rogue. Nobody wants to talk about the real issues:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html

Stifled Freedom

Phil, she winked voluntarily. Its not about appearence. She winked purposefully after making a decision to do so. He behavior is fair game just like her words are fair game.

renfro

A good natured or sly “wink” is not Ms. Stafford’s idea of humor or cute! When the KC Star endorsed and played a pivotal role of passing a more restrictive smoking ordinance she leaned to a satirical preference ---- What was her liberal drivel in January 2008 concerning the replacement of the existing and adequate smoking ban already in force?
------------------------------------------
Stafford -- “There's a downside to the growing number of smoking bans, though. I'm going to feel sorrier for all those workers I see huddled outside office buildings and storefronts taking their smoking breaks in the elements.” --------- Elements?
-----------------------------------------
Great sense of “folksy” humor, like her editorial cohorts Stafford shares an unusual affinity and satisfaction for dispensing business and consumer HARDSHIP ----Stafford and her colleagues did have the last laugh though, a choice, lung failure from secondhand smoke or pneumonia from her curbside “elements” and smog.
Stafford's professional and political writings as a columnist in KC would question her judgement of a candidate male or female regardless of party affiliation?

Rogue

Yep lets talk about some serious issues, not in this newspaper, not in my lifetime.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=

Marctnts

One person winks when they shouldn't. One person doesn't salute when they should. One has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth. One can't keep his religious ethnicities straight.

These issues, ALL OF THEM, are designed to strike a cord with the least common denominator. They are sound bites that try to "shock", but even a little bit of independent thought usually shows them for what they are.

We have REAL issues to concern ourselves with. Why are we still letting ourselves be distracted by this fluff.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright