Love or abhor them, a radical will relish almost any chance to get on a soap box and convert non-believers. Passionate or nutty, angry, courageous, visionary or dangerous, the range of descriptions for radicals is vast -- but one description you will rarely hear is the word, "coward." Until today.
Ladies and gents, meet the new leaders of the Radical Far Right.
Preaching to the choir is easy. The worst that happens is someone interrupting you, "We know that already!!" However, when Far Right Tea Party Republicans began winning inside the GOP, they created a problem for themselves: they had to leave the safety of their own insular primaries and step into the real world. Suddenly, not everyone is shouting, "Hallelujah," and you have to defend the radical reactionary words that actually come out of your mouth.
That's why, no matter how volatile the speeches sound, you know that a person doesn't have the courage of their convictions when they refuse to defend them at every opportunity.
In the end, it's not the number of placards being waved for you, but the challenges one is willing to face that show us what a speaker is made of.
Whatever one thinks of President Barack Obama's politics, he not only walked into a packed conference of House Republicans last January and took questions from his severest opponents for 72 minutes -- but also risked having it televised so that the nation could see the entire give-and-take.
When Sarah Palin was asked by a reporter what newspapers she read, she called it a Gotcha Question.
Of course, among the Radical Far Right, used to living in a protective cocoon where voices speak uniformly, where differences are threatening, where even secular ideas are accepted on faith alone, most any question is a Gotcha Question.
It did not come as a shock therefore when Ms. Palin sent one of her position paper "tweets" to "Tea Party" Republican Christine O'Donnell in Delaware with the advice -- "time's limited; use it 2 connect w/local voters whom you'll be serving vs appeasing nat'l media seeking ur destruction."
Never mind that this is gibberish or contradicted the former half-term governor's earlier advice to Mr. O'Donnell to "speak through Fox News." Consistency has never been Ms. Palin's strongpoint. Unfortunately, consistency is another cornerstone to having the courage of your convictions.
And so we see Tea Party Republican candidates who are happy to shout their ultra-reactionary thoughts behind protective walls, but when it comes time to defend those positions to the outside real world, they cowardly run away.
After Sarah Palin interviewed one time with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, and failed, she stopped talking to national press, began trying to demean the "Lame Stream Media" and hid behind by the barrier of Fox News. And this, when she was running to be a heartbeat from the presidency.
After Rand Paul's extreme views on Civil Rights and cutting Social Security were revealed, he too stopped giving national interviews, and did a long disappearing act that would have made Lance Burton proud, hiding cowardly behind safe, unquestioning walls.
Sharron Angle stopped doing even local interviews when her wingnut statements appeared on God's plan for rape victims and cutting Social Security -- to the point of literally running away from reporters. Then again, perhaps God's plan was for her to look cowardly.
When Jan Brewer had a meltdown during her first debate and was then asked about her false charges of beheadings, she too ran away from reporters. And canceled further debates.
And after videotapes of Christine O'Donnell's greatest lunatic hits began cropping up like traveling circus tents, she canceled all national TV appearances. Just yesterday, her whole staff hid from Rachel Maddow.
These aren't isolated accidents, they're a pattern of cowardice.
When one is hoping to be elected to public office, it is to represent All The People. That's the actual "We the People" the Far Right loves to contend they speak for. To run away from questions on behalf of those you are trying to represent is a dereliction of duty.
When Ms. Palin ran for Vice President, a heartbeat from becoming leader of the free world -- where she would have to battle daily real confrontation of wars and terrorism; where she would have to deal with our nation's enemies, like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia; where she would have to sit face-to-face with world leaders whose national interests conflict with our own -- how could she be taken seriously if she can't handle Katie Couric? If she can't handle, "Who are your favorite Founding Fathers"?
We hold debates and demand politicians answer reporter questions to see how they respond under pressure. If Sarah Palin can't bear dealing with Uncle Charlie Gibson, imagine trusting her with al Qaeda, Mahoud Ahmadinejad, and Hezbollah.
Imagine trusting any politician who runs away.
Imagine trusting a politician who lacks the courage of even the simplest of their convictions:
When Rahm Emmanuel privately referred to some supporters as "f-ing retards" Sarah Palin demanded he be fired, rising as mother and champion of those with special needs. Yet after Rush Limbaugh publicly called "people who are retards, retards," she cowardly excused it, insisting, "I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire...." And though she was "outraged" at President Obama for making a self-deprecating joke comparing himself to the Special Olympics - she cowardly sat silent when Sharron Angle ridiculed health care for "autism."
That's your craven "mama grizzly."
And so this cowardice passes throughout the ranks of Far Right Radicals, stirring up those anxious to hear only what they want to hear, behind safe walls. But then removing their most controversial statements from their own websites and TV ads.
No matter how much an audience may cheer, however, it is the speaker who must show the courage of their convictions. And running away, while pandering only to your friends shows nothing.
Other than what a coward you are.
No matter which side you are on, you are subject to scrutiny.
The Media is about stories...we get that. But they hate being used for "puff pieces", which amount to free advertising, and they will ALWAYS want something with substance. If substance can't be found, they will settle for scandal, and the more a candidate speaks, the more their words are subject to examination.
That's Politics 101. And its not rocket science.
You are putting yourself "out there", and when you do, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy". That means if you did something in the past that you regret, it better have been in private., because if there are photos, or god help us, VIDEO, you will be subject to being a news feed.
I call it "pulling a Vanessa" (Vanessa Williams knew she had some seriously hardcore pics in her past when she ran for Miss America....they were bound to surface.) If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be...well...serious?
The thinly qualified need not apply.
where are the opposition speakers?
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg.
You'll find them them there. Going back four years. Twice a week. Over 400 of them.
Just to be clear, and what I assume is clear to most people reading this, there is a difference between making a comparison to highlight the specific point of an article, and "having" to do so for some separate reason having nothing to do with the issue at hand. It should be equally clear to most that this article was not about President Barack Obama's accomplishments or time in office. Articles on that subject can be found among that list above. You may agree or disagree with them. But they exist on their own merit. This was about something else entirely.
Sharron Angle and Jan Brewer literally running away from quesstions is not discretion, it is fear. Discretion is not showing up at a party because it might be awkward for others. Cowardice is not showing up because it might be awkward for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
It is demeaning, and insulting, and disrespectful, to treat an accomplished Governor as if they do not read, or can't read somehow, and have never picked up a newspaper.
It is beyond ridiculous.
Why wasn't Obama asked what newspapers he read? (at least before the Couric question became a Dem talking point)
Because it is a stupid and obvious attempt to demean and marginalize a politician with whom CBS disagrees on policy.
I understand why Palin would react with disgust and refuse to give such a question any response.
I would have done the same.
She had just published an Op-Ed in the New York Times the week before, and you really think she couldn't think of the name of one newspaper to name..
You really think she was too stupid and too ignorant a hick to name a couple of newspapers?!?
That says more about you that Palin.
You are the coward for hiding behind diversions like the Couric badgering, unable to face Palin's ideas, only able to call her stupid and ignorant..
And you wonder why most Americans view outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, etc. as biased beyond all measure.
I'm sure that when he was less well known Obama was asked that question and responded with a list of sources that he read on a regular basis. There was no attempt to demean or marginalize Palin, she did that herself by treating a legitimate question offered to learn something about her, through asking about her reading habits, as beneath her dignity. It turned out that she had neither, reading habits nor dignity.
Palin should have been able to think of the New York Times but maybe someone else wrote the op-ed for her and she forgot to write NYT on her paw.
She might have come up with the Skagway News or the Anchorage Daily News or the school lunch menu on the front page of the Wasilla Frontiersman.
I saw no badgering. I'll admit that she seemed perplexed and maybe frustrated that Palin was unable to respond to the simplest questions. Elisberg's article is about the lack of courage shown by many of these Teapartiers when faced by the press, nowhere does he call her stupid or ignorant. That would have to be the subject of another... much longer article.
That is the path that that the public leadership of the Teabaggers and Republicans have chosen to take, leading torchlight parades and angry mobs in infantile expressions of their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs that was largely created by the oligarchy behind the scenes of their own "movement."
Were it not for the enormous sums of corporate and offshore money being dumped into the promotion of these idiots for offices and positions for which few of them are even remotely qualified, they would not bear mentioning.
But the people and interests behind them are a grave danger to this country and they must be stopped using the only means currently available and that is by going to the polls and answering their insulting "movement" and their criminal manipulation of our electoral process with an upraised hand and a resounding NO.