The Lowe Down

<< Previous entry: Chan Lowe: The Miami Heat loss

>> Next entry: Chan Lowe: Mitt Romney, the Wild One

Chan Lowe: Look out, Sarah Palin


Those who would lump Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann together as the Genuine Article and Mini-Me are not just being unfair to Ms. Bachmann, they’re fooling themselves. Yes, both women are outspoken and conservative, and draw support from the same constituencies, but Ms. Bachmann’s performance last night at the Republican debate demonstrated that she is no Sarah Palin, and I mean that in a good way.

If you knew about Ms. Bachmann beforehand, and you’ve heard some of her more memorable lines (my favorite being the time she called for a media investigation of her colleagues in the House to ferret out those who harbor un-American thoughts), you’d know that she marches to her own drummer, to put it diplomatically.

Like so many people who are just a little, um, off, she can do an astounding job of impersonating a sane woman when called upon, as she did last night. She was well prepared with set-piece answers, spoke easily on her feet, and she had that requisite fire the pundits are always looking for.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is so uninformed that she is unaware of the depths of her own ignorance. This isn’t to say that she doesn’t have street smarts, but if you deconstruct her standard drivel about freedom, liberty and the constitution, what you get are the parrotings of an incurious mind that has never bothered to plumb the meaning of its utterances. There is also a whiff of insincerity there, like a mother-spoon feeding her baby pablum while knowing full well she’d never eat such dreck herself.

Bachmann appears to have done her homework, is not afraid to do the heavy grunt work required of a serious campaign, and has the advantage of completely believing everything she says. She’s obviously a quick study. Once she figures out which state the American Revolution actually began in, Mitt Romney and the rest of those stiffs had better look out.

Categories: None
submit to reddit
add to delicious


1854 - 13th Amendment - abolished Slavery
- enacted by republican congress
- 100% Republican Support
- 23% Democratic
1866 - Civil Rights Act of 1866
- extended rights to emancipated slaves
- Enacted by a Republican Congress
1868 - 14th Amendment
- gave citizenship to newly freed slaves
- Enacted by a Republican Congress
- 94% Republican Support
- 0% Democratic
1870-15th Amendment
- Ensured the right to vote for blacks
- enacted by a Republican Congress
- 100% Republican Support
- 0% Democratic Support
1871-Civil Rights Act of 1871-Anti KKK Act
-to protect southern blacks and whites supporting Republicans from the Ku Klux Klan
- Enacted by a Republican Congress
1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875
- prohibibited discrimination in public accommodations
- Written by Rep. Sen. Charles Sumner
- Enacted by a Rep. Congress
- 99.5% Rep. Support
- 0% Democratic Support
1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957
- Established a Civil Rights Commission
- Proposed by a Republican President
- Written and Intro by Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen
- Sen John F. Kennedy voted against the Bill!!!
1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964
Vote totals for Civil Rights Act of 1964
- 80% Republican
- 63% Dem
- Al Gore Sr. voted against the Bill

Why is this not known? Because the Democrats don't want us to know the truth. They appease black people with entitlements. The new Democrat slavery.


You got it in one! Fact is, she won't be asked the tough questions until she gets deeper into the campaign. I know that might be considered a moderate republican audience in NH, but one particular question showed us the moderate republicans' concern: will you be accountable to all your constituents, not just the tea party?

A rather difficult position to back off of when you consider yourself the leader of the Tea Party Caucus. Good news is, this will pave the way for more moderate viewpoints, which I believe is the preference of most republicans.

Ron Paul was fantastic and straightforward. Nothing to practice when you believe every word you say. And how the heck will corporate interests allow that to happen? :)

I wish best of luck to Mitt. He would be my preferred front-runner as a more moderate voice. However, I believe his religion will be a tough pill for many Americans to swallow.

Enjoyed Cain, but I've had my share of Tea Party Executives who have no political experience. (Let's get to work). Aside from which, there is not one shred of proof that lowered Capital Gains rates creates jobs or helps the economy. Otherwise, why haven't they over the last 10 years?

Anyone else worth mentioning? I am sorry to say no. Pawlenty and Santorum are marginalizing themselves by just being themselves. No shot!

Lliberal Democrats are scared silly of Sarah Palin. If they weren't, they wouldn't spend so much time and effort to portray her as a clown. They would ignore her completely.

Don't fool yourself. Nobody's the least bit scared of The Quitter. She is constantly amusing, and we hope she never goes away. We're thrilled she's associated with your party. And we've learned a lot from her.

We've learned the Statue of Liberty was "gifted to us by foreign governments" to remind us not to make the mistakes other countries made and not to be gettin' all Socialist and stuff. (Actually the Statue welcomes immigrants.)

We've learned Paul Revere "rang those bells and fired warning shots" to warn the BRITISH, as opposed to the colonists, that the British were coming.

Next we'll learn that the Declaration of Independence is when the independent voters start ringin' those bells to declare who they're votin' for -- the Declaration of the Independents.

We hope she never goes away! Too bad she's not going to run for president.

BC(batshite crazy) Bachman, ya' gotta love her. Not.

To Chan's Nemesis:

I ask you to look a little bit deeper at the membership of the Republican and Democrat parties when you relay those votes you mention. Traditionally, Democrats were a party of the south whose constituency was largely white southerners who OPPOSED the measures you stated up there. That's why you see such a tilted voting skew. Most of them fled the Democrats when the dems came to represent equal rights in the 60s. The Republican party of yore actually represented the interests of more moderate elements: take Lincoln for example. His proclomations were reviled by Southern Dems.

If he were here today, he'd probably represent the Democrats or Libertarians, not the modern Republicans. And current Republicans stand in the way of most legislation that involves equal rights, currently. For instance: any legislation that would level the playing field for people who are in same-sex relationships. Somehow, the fact that they are attracted to people of the same sex means they cannot be married and enjoy the same benefits of married couples who are heterosexual. Mostly because they are scared or because they believe that's what a religious figurehead believes. Did Jesus ever mention homosexuality? Not once.

Equality and rights as a bastion of the modern Republican party? I think not. Remember, it's the people who make the decisions, not the party. The people simply choose the party whose ideals reflect their own.

Get real!

Tom: I'm concerned about anyone I don't deem qualified to hold office. She simply doesn't have the kind of background that I feel will serve the highest executive office well. I know people had the same concerns about Reagan, but let's face it: she's no Reagan. He was much better on his feet and understood the issues of his time and how the government system works.

Did someone make her say the things she said? I believe Chan was simply pointing out that Michelle B is better qualified and better read. she handled questions appropriately and seemd at ease. Sarah simply never seemed to be on topic or on target.

Let's see how Michelle B does when she is truly challenged and questioned rigorously on the campaign trail.

@ Chan's Nemesis. You mention the 13th amendment coming about 6 years before the beginning of the Civil War. This is why even the tea party people need to support schools. They often appear to be under educated. You can't just fill in the gaps with what you think history should be.

Also @ Chan's Nemesis. You spelled nemesis wrong. Sorry.

Leave a Reply


You share in the community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About the author
Chan LoweCHAN LOWE has been the Sun Sentinel’s first and only editorial cartoonist for the past twenty-six years. Before that, he worked as cartoonist and writer for the Oklahoma City Times and the Shawnee (OK) News-Star.

Chan went to school in New York City, Los Angeles, and the U.K., and graduated from Williams College in 1975 with a degree in Art History. He also spent a year at Stanford University as a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow.

His work has won numerous awards, including the Green Eyeshade Award and the National Press Foundation Berryman Award. He has also been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His cartoons have won multiple first-place awards in all of the Florida state journalism contests, and The Lowe-Down blog, which he began in 2008, has won writing awards from the Florida Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with me

Search this blog
E-mail newsletters
Get the news that matters to you delivered to your inbox. Breaking news, hurricane alerts, news from your neighborhood, and more. Click here to sign up for our newsletters. It is fast, easy and free!