« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Palin Derangement Syndrome: The “WTF Sputnik Moment” Edition

By: scipio62 (Diary)  |  January 28th, 2011 at 09:27 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I took a glimpse at the left’s next attack on Palin. I thought it so stupid and petty as to be completely undeserving of a comment. I need to remember to stop underestimating how persistent the left is when pushing their deliberate falsehoods.

The latest meme is their claim that Palin said the Soviets won the Space Race with Sputnik although it led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Jed Lewison does at DailyKos, PZ Myers at Pharyngula does, and Digby does. Naturally, these idiots have no idea what the “Sputnik Moment” was, especially since their “Dear Leader” Obama misrepresented it during the SOTU.

Even TPM can’t really call out Palin on this, although they try:

Yes, the Soviet Union won many of the early contests in the space race (including putting the first man in orbit, which may have been what Palin meant by “race to space”).

The Soviet Union even put the first artificial satellite into outer space. Which meant they won the race to space, not the Space Race. That artificial satellite was called – drumroll, please – Sputnik.

We can see these leftists remain desperate to paint Palin as some kind of moron at the same time saying Obama is some kind of genius. They are afraid of her, of that there is no doubt. They hate her for being everything they aren’t, a decent human being.

Tags: , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Goldwater_Conservative

    comment from her, not so much because of the space race part but saying that spending money on Sputnik was one of the main reasons the soviet union collasped makes it sound like communisim would have worked if it were not for the space race. The Soviet Union collapsed for a myriad of reasons most having to do with the fact that pure communisim without personal incentive, does not work. But then again, this is par for Palin’s course.

    • Finrod

      People that are experts on the USSR’s space program like Jim Oberg agree with Palin.

      http://moelane.com/2011/01/28/rsrh-ryan-j-reilly-should-feel-privileged/

      • lapert

        but that long causal link is a far cry from the ‘inevitable collapse’ Palin says (it isn’t clear it was even necessary and certainly isn’t sufficient in the narrative Jim provides) and it doesn’t once reference the debt from the Sputnik program that Palin uses as the causal connection.

        • Finrod

          You’re putting yourself forward like you know more than he does, so you must be some kind of authority, after all.

          • lapert

            I don’t think I know more than he does about the fall of the USSR at all – but what he said doesn’t provide a defense of Palin’s statement.

            Again, she made a direct, explicit connection between the debt the soviet union took on for Sputnik and their collapse whereas Jim provides a narrative that shows that the eventual success of the Apollo program,, which was a reaction to Sputnik, impacted soviet decision making later on with regards to SDI.

            They are telling two very different stories with different implications and while Jim’s is supported by the history, Palin’s is simply a weak attempt to draw an analogy to our deficit spending which is neither accurate nor helpful in winning the real argument.

          • Finrod

            .. what he said doesn?t provide a defense of Palin?s statement.

            It’s more complicated, but the essence is, Palin was right: the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.

            Gee, that sounds like a defense of Palin’s statement to me. What text are you reading?

          • lapert

            Yes, what I meant is that his actual facts regarding the history don’t support a defense of Palin – and his line there should be enough to prove it. Yes, setting off the space race was one of the seeds of eventual collapse (again though, it is not clear it was necessary and certainly not sufficient) but that isn’t the argument Palin made. She made a blunt statement that the debt took on in the Sputnik program resulted in their inevitable collapse – no nuance there, no historical narrative or indirect causation. His history does not defend Palin’s statement and trying to make excuses for her by saying ‘its more complicated’ or redirecting from a blunt ‘resulted in’ to the more casual ‘sowed the seed’ are just ways to try to change what Palin said to conform to the history.

          • Finrod

            Jim Oberg doesn’t have a problem with Palin’s statement (in fact he calls the nitpicking of it ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’), but you seem to based on your reading of his summary of history.

            Sorry, but I’ll stick with him.

            It’s like in Tolkien, where in the Silmarillion where the Third Age is being summarized, it says that Frodo destroyed the Ring of Power and caused the downfall of Sauron. You come along and say “no no that’s all wrong, Gollum destroyed the Ring and that was by accident”. That doesn’t make the summary incorrect.

          • lapert

            And this can serve as a great example to other of the fallacy of arguing from authority. His own words betray the conclusion as he has to rewrite what she said but you are free to rest easy with it if that is what you need to do.

            Me, I’ll shake my head again at how Palin manages to shift the discussion from arguing why our opponents are wrong to why she is – it may serve her purposes but i doubt it serves conservatives generally.

          • scipio62

            It sure wasn’t Palin. It was those leftists I linked to who actually tried shift the discussion. They didn’t do so because they were either experts in the Soviet space program or the Soviet Union in general; they did it because they hate and are afraid of Palin.

            Remember the second sentence in my post. Those I linked to get paid to push their leftist agenda through the Democrats, making it a point to regularly lie about Palin in particular and conservatives in general. Far from Palin being a distraction that doesn’t serve conservatives, it’s those conservatives who take what leftists say with a grain of salt that doesn’t serve conservatives generally.

      • bobmontgomery

        Sputnik is an example of why the Soviet Union collapsed(Bingo)! Because the poorly educated Ronald Regan realized we could use our strengths (capitalism and truth) to defeat them. Space programs, Pershing missiles, spend them into non-existence, et cetera.

      • Goldwater_Conservative

        but I do have a history degree and one that specialized in the history of Russia and I can say as someone who has stuided this that her statement:

        ?Yeah, they won but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union,?

        Shows she is both stupid and careless. We are taught, or at least should be, at an early age that if we really dont have any clue what we are talking about maybe we should just not talk about it or else you will show everyone just how ignorant you really are. I guess Saracuda never got that memo, which is why the MSM loves talking about her, not because they fear her but because they could have never dreamed of a person fitting their template of conservatives are stupid mantra like she does.

        • Finrod

          You want to think Palin is stupid, so that’s what you see.

          Sorry, but I’ll stick with the guy that’s the expert on the USSR’s space program, who doesn’t have any problems at all with what Palin said, and thinks her detractors have Palin Derangement Syndrome.

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            he is an expert on the USSR space program and not an expert on what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union. I agree that the space battle was extreamly expensive and it certianly took a bite into Mother Russia, but as a true capitalist, to say that anything other than the internal faults of communisim was the down fall is both wrong and anti-capitalistic.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            the arms race was a much larger drag on their economy than space exploration.

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            certianly a much bigger factor but the ultimate demise came when Gorbachev realized that the system was failing from within, and his radical reform of perestroika and glasnost (the soivet version a a little bit of freedom) began the expose a country that was failing. The media became more free and started to show a country that was racked by corruption, alchololism and poverty. This led to riots, demonstrations and political unrests and the iron fist was no longer in place to tamp it down.

            I dare someone on Fox to ask Sarah about her comments and ask her what role she thinks perestroika and glasnost had in the Soviet Union’s downfall. I’d pay good money to see that.

    • JSobieski

      The economic pressure on the USSR caused by SDI, the space race, keeping up with military technology, etc. is a key factor in the Cold War being over.

      Communism didn’t need to “work” to survive another 100 years.

      Remove North America from the surface of the earth in 1980, and the USSR would have dominated the world for at least a couple of centuries, despite the fact that communism didn’t work.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        that although collectivism made it an economic basket case, the command economy could do some things very well if they concentrated only on those few things.

        Thus they had a cutting edge aerospace industry, they put out many great physicists, and they pioneered eye surgery and a few other limited medical fields.

        But they couldn’t make enough wheat or pork or soap or cars.

        • aesthete

          Their educational, biological, and other initiatives were primitive compared to western efforts, despite the fact that they put a lot of emphasis on them. They were good at some things that they really set their hearts on (the space race for a little while), but in general, even their vanity projects were disasters on many levels.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            world class ballet, and they pioneered cutting off a man’s balls and entering him into the Olympics as a woman.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        that although collectivism made it an economic basket case, the command economy could do some things very well if they concentrated only on those few things.

        Thus they had a cutting edge aerospace industry, they put out many great physicists, and they pioneered eye surgery and a few other limited medical fields.

        But they couldn’t make enough wheat or pork or soap or cars.

  • chrisinva

    The left’s obsession with Palin becomes even more ridiculous with each passing day. She is a private citizen and they attempt to crucify her at every chance they can.

    Yet, it doesn’t work. She’s still here and she is right on this one as well.

    Hopefully more people will see this for what it really is — sheer lunacy.

    • Goldwater_Conservative

      that the USSR’s spending on Sputnik and their entire space race is why communisim failed?

      • chrisinva

        I agreed with the author on the “race to space” comment. (That’s what I was talking about.)

        The USSR collapsed under the weight of excessive in general — couldn’t keep up with the U.S.

        • Goldwater_Conservative

          but here is what Palin actually said:

          “Yeah, they won but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union,”

          Thats a very stupid statement by someone who is operating off their 4th grade history texts.

          • scipio62

            She isn’t trying to take two events that are over 30 years apart and claim one led directly to the other. That’s what the leftists are trying to do.

            Here is what is stupid. Sputnik was launched by a government that controlled every aspect of its economy. The U.S. responded very narrowly by putting resources into going into space and eventually the moon, but not by directing the country in a particular direction. While the federal government did direct the outer space aspect, it sure didn’t direct the ability of entrepreneurs from taking the innovation and technology and making it available in the private market. That wasn’t allowed in the Soviet Union.

            What is stupid is Obama using Sputnik as a pretense to expand the federal government’s control over the economy. Maybe not going as far as the Soviet Union did, but enough to lower the American standard of living quite significantly.

          • lapert

            This response is absurd – it seems to both stretch Palin’s words beyond comprehension and misread Obama’s speech as well.

            Starting with Palin, how on earth can you say she isn’t try to connect the events?
            As noted above her exact words were “it resulted in” – in what world can you use ‘resulted’ and not mean causality (it isn’t even implied, it is explicit). She seems to be making a connection to our debt and potential future collapse – which may be valid but the causality between the soviets investment in the sputnik program and their is non-existent.

            As for how you read Obama’s speech. Well, he isn’t suggesting that our ‘Sputnik Moment’ means we should invest like the Soviets did (as both you and Palin seem to conclude) but explicitly references acting in the way that we responded to the Soviets which you seem to applaud in your post.

            Now we can argue whether Obama’s actual proposals would have the impact as the creation of ARPA and NASA did but try to twist his words to mean he wants us to act like the Soviets is unnecessary and leads to the easy dismissal of the criticism rather than addressing it.

          • scipio62

            First off, I said it was a minor error on Palin’s part. But not on par of some of the stupid things others, Democrats and Republicans, have said in the last three weeks.

            Second, the Soviet system of government and the activities it supported, including Sputnik, was doomed to failure. There is no way it could maintain its massive military machine and its huge investment into outer space and expect to make sure its people maintained even a standard of living akin to the poorest in the U.S. That government controlled absolutely everything, especially how much food people ate.

            Third, I didn’t misread Obama at all, as I mentioned here. Neither Eisenhower or JFK used the Space Race to remake America in their image. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to control the kind of energy that is available, who will be responsible for education, control the Internet, and control health care. In all cases, Obama wants the federal government to be the beneficent provider of all this. He pays lip service to the private sector and the American people, that’s all.

            Like I said, I’m not saying Obama wants to turn us into the Soviet Union. But he sure believes in a government command-driven economy and making sure the federal government has the increased power to do get there. Unfortunately, someone other than Obama may not be so “benevolent” in their use of this power. It’s a legitimate concern and in no way distracts from my criticism of Obama.

          • lapert

            Actually, I don’t think I misread you at all.

            With regards to first – we will have to disagree on what is minor and what is major when it comes to errors. I think, a false (or at least highly exaggerated and misplaced) statement of direct causality that is made to support your broader point is a major error that detracts from you ability to argue the broader point successfully (even if it is correct).

            With regards to the second, how can you say Sputnik was doomed to failure when it succeeded (remember, they one that part of the race)? If you mean more broadly that the soviet system was doomed to failure I agree – because when you ignore demand signals in a control economy you end up with in collapse (but this has nothing to do with debt). But Palin made a different, and very direct claim that the debt associated with Sputnik led to their failure which is wholly unsupported by any evidence – even in 1991 soviet debt was only ~20% of GDP, it is not why they collapsed and is not a good comparison to our debt situation today if if Palin thinks it sounds good to say.

            With regard to third, that is a very fair point. It gets completely lost if you try to make the connection between him saying ‘sputnik moment’ and the debt the Soviets took on in the Sputnik program (even if it was the cause of collapse). In fact you argument is one you can win on, so why muddy it with poor analogies like Palin did?

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            being in the Palin pom-pom “you go girl” “mama grizzly” world. Almost weekly you are forced into defending something she said and almost always you are going to have to re-create history to try and prove her point.

          • Finrod

            Otherwise there’s a real chance your head just might explode come November 6, 2012.

          • powertothepeople

            take your ball home, sit in your room, and proclaim how evil all of us are who did not bow to our knees at the very mention of her name when she does not run. Will you pout our your lower lip and tell all the rest of the candidates to shove it since your dream messiah did not run?

            I bet, the Palin messiah worshipers will be the new Ron Paul folks. As soon as their guy is done or does not run, they stay home and refuse to vote.

            I would suggest that you take the time to gather your own self as it seems more and more likely each day that she will not run.

          • gop2010

            [nt]

          • powertothepeople

            another one on their knees worshiping the image of Palin.

            No not rude, simply a response to what seems a fellow knee bending worshiper. See rude would be telling you to stop the crying and go shove the nonsense, but you know new tone and all keeps me from being rude like that….

          • Finrod

            I haven’t even decided who I’m going to support in 2012, so you can take your pathetic attempt at flaming me and shove it. Maybe you think it’s a good idea for Republicans to be tearing each other and our possible candidates to pieces, doing the work of the Democrats and the MSM for them, but I think you’re a whiny stupid git that has no place posting here.

            What I’d really like to tell you is verboten by the posting rules, but the acronym for it is: FOAD.

          • speciallist

            your act is getting tired…..the bullying, the Sarah bashing…..the typos…

            the personal insults….and you start going after folks that have been around since before you knew what Redstate was.

            know your role

          • scipio62

            What Palin said hardly comes out as anything really that dumb. It’s not a position I would defend, but it’s just being inflated way out of proportion.

            Besides, you have a bunch of leftist demagogues whining about what Palin said, without so much as a whimper from them on how dumb the guy who first used the phrase “Sputnik Moment” sounded.

          • aesthete

            It’s an innocuous mistake, not dissimilar from Obama’s creation of the Austrian language during his trip there: something to poke fun at, but not to take seriously in any sense.

  • Common_Cents

    The WTF-(winning the future) comments were great!

    She seems to be falling into a marketing/PR role rather than a governing one. That seems to be her strength and would serve us all well.

    • chihank

      You may be on to something. Palin may see that running for President is too much trouble and may opt for the role of pundit/celebrity to shove it the liberal media and Obama, Her WTF comments were inappropiate for a Presidential candidate, but just right for a pundit to make.

      • gop2010

        She seeks it out. WTF was funny and caught on. I think we need to take the rod out of our collective a**es and realize that stuffed shirts are not the only or even a preferable avenue to political power.

  • izoneguy
    • dsmurf

      so much for quitting the governorship-the most popular, competent second place ex vice presidential candidate that I remember, (isn’t saying much)

      Death Panels, et al.

      I’ll take Obama anyday over Palin, his WTF statements are only exceeded by appealing to the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Winning the Future indeed.
      http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561401/201101281856/Fright-Of-Egypt.htm– yes snarkiness intended.

      who else will take the big O on? John Bolton? DeMint? Herman Cain? I hope that Palin joins the field, whatever the results, as long as we don’t eat our own.

  • http://www.mi7.co/ angelocracy

    Russia let’s rich guys ride on their space craft because they are broke and need the money.

    They want a nuke treaty because they do not have the money to maintain all their weapons.

    Obama says let this be our Sputnik Moment. A few days later the IMF releases a report warning the United States,

    ?The U.S. has a lot of credibility. This does not imply their credibility can last forever,? IMF fiscal affairs director Carlo Cottarelli said.

    I agree with Sarah Palin