If At First You Don't Succeed, Fail, Fail Again.

There are plenty of Rumo(u)rs™... (2.00 / 7)

...and of course there have already been a dozen or so ethics investigations. The FBI denied any active investigation, but that only covers the FBI, and does not preclude a 'deal' having been done: Palin steps down as investigation is closed.

Like most people on the planet, I have no idea what goes on in Palin's head, but the legal defense mounted by Van Klein is not closing things down one whit. For starters it misrepresents the Mayor of Wasilla's powers, and by going into details about procurement during Palin's tenure there, only pumps out more smoke . Of course further Rumo(u)rs™ include Todd's membership of the AIP (which is given a lame explanation in the email correspondence with Schmidt) which probably has incurred investigations of its.

Other Rumo(u)rs™ could be of a sexual nature or over health issues. Personally I doubt the 'spending time with my book advance' theory, or the Platform to launch a nomination bid in the lower 48, as these would have been best served by staying in office. Also, the impromptu urgency of the announcement, and the tremulous 'moose in headlights' look of Palin as she delivered her speech, suggested something bad and major.

Either way, all of these Rumo(u)rs™ could be cleared up with a proper explanation by Palin of her decision, forced or otherwise. While this remains unforthcoming, it's no surprise that bloggers and other terrible librul types will continue to speculate.

Fortunately, the US has much more enlightened libel laws, especially when it comes to figures who willingly put themselves in the public spotlight. One of the things I most admire about your libel laws is that you have to prove 'malice' in libel. I think most the malice to Palin's career comes from her own semi suicidal actions. I also think that the discovery process over Palin's financial dealingsin Wasilla is not something she or Todd would welcome. So it is pure 'scare fluff'

As for insults to a public figure, didn't Obama have to suffer in silence the accusation that he was 'palling around with terrorists'. In the UK we also have the defence of low common abuse - you can call someone an idiot or a wanker, without damages except to your own vocabulary.

Therefore, as a fellow Moose, I have no problem in calling Sarah Palin, the Quitter from Wasilla, also known as Bible Spice and Moosalini, a scarily narcisstic, irrational and probably dangerous public figure.

If anyone has a problem with that, sue me too.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 14:07:57 PM CDT

Palin fails to understand that defamation is a false statement (2.00 / 5)

...and that reporters quoting her directly doesn't really count.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.

And unfortunately, Palin is chock full of wonderful quotes to mine. I like this one, in light of the complaints that people are being mean to her for using her own words...and there are a ton of public records to mine as well.  That is an unfortunate side of the freedom and liberty that Mrs. Palin convienently ignores, much like the Not Real Americans who've been in the Union for longer than most of Real America have even been territories, let alone states.

It's been brought up a few times, and I'm sure will be again, that Palin's record for personal responsibility is...thin at best.   From her education--four schools in five years, and one of those schools she attended twice to get a journalism degree that she hasn't really used, nor shown a lot of media savvy for her dollars--her tenure as Mayor she exploded the town's debt, and then left for a failed run for Lt. Governor, and then when she was put onto the Oil and Gas Conservation Comission, she left that as well. As Governor, she took a great deal of credit for policies in place when she got there, and ducked responsibility for policies that she supported but didn't turn out so well.

And there's the issue of looking to duck out of office there while tax revenue was high, and the VP slot didn't really pan out, and now, faced with rising costs, falling revenue, she's going to duck out again.

This is a pattern. And it doesn't bode well wanting to be a light in the political firmament of the GOP.

The GOP has long touted itself as the party of responsibility. That is unfortunate as of late, since the leadership hasn't actually accepted responsibility for a heck of a lot lately. It's an issue across the nation, as we are heading towards more of a shame based culture, and more people think that "responsibility" and "blame" are equal synonyms and interchangable at any time.

Responsibility is accepted. It is taken. You step up to responsibility--and you take those duties onto yourself. Shedding them when things get tough, that isn't responsibility, and it's not leadership. And the sad thing is, Palin is only a tiny symptom of this shift towards a shame based culture, and the myth that "leadership" is "always right."

Palin's sureity is what worries me about her. Her certitude, despite inconvenent facts is not leadership. It is an attempt to press a view on reality, to create reality even when things aren't there. She, and many others, feel that leadership is about expressing your will to make things happen. And that is the problem--responsibility doesn't play into that model. If things go wrong, because you've committed to an action, despite the facts before you, it's hard to accept the responsibility when things go kerflooey. Responsibility is a nice word, it's a nice catch phrase, but it responsibility isn't in her political model.

It's other people to blame. In part, you can look to her religious views--God's Will and Supply Side Jesus will it, so it must be, and if facts don't pan out, then it must be evil doers who have flouted God's Plan. That sort of certitude doesn't jibe well with good governance, because it doesn't lend itself to a simple maxim: Pray to God, but row to shore.

You can certainly pray that the economic and political winds will favor you and yours, but if not, you adjust those sails to meet the actual conditions. Certitude like hers worries me, because it leaves no room for correction, it leaves no room for adjusting policy and tactics if you turn out to be wrong.

Good leaders adjust. They see what exists, and move to take the variables into account. You can certainly have an agenda, and goals, but you can't keep advancing based on a strategy that you declared as being final if things change. And that certitude that has crept into the language of those who like the mantle of "Conservatives" doesn't allow for change. It is a hidebound and politically inflexible mantra that they are right, no matter what the prevailing conditions might be.

The economy is bad, cut taxes. The economy is good, cut taxes. The economy is wobbling, cut taxes. The economy is bad, we need to increase spending. The economy is good, we need to increase spending. The economy is wobbling, we need to increase spending.

Fiscal Conservatism is more than tax cuts. It is efficient spending. It is efficient taxation, and that means consideration that Palin and those like her don't like. Consideration isn't "leadership" in their mind, because leadership has to be bold. It has to be out there in front! Leadership isn't worried or considered, it's exciting!

And it is apparently without a whiff of responsibility. And that is my real worry, is that the responsibility has faded from that side of the leadership, in favor of a certitude that doesn't allow for facts or a changable landscape.  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 15:45:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great comment Hubie (2.00 / 4)

I think the bulk of it nails something observers (from left to right) have noticed about modern conservatism: it has shirked exactly those tenets of political and financial responsibility it once so avidly laid claim to.

Much of what you say about Palin - the emphasis on instinct, on personal 'will' (yet covering that up as a 'higher authority' or 'higher father') - is exactly where Bush went off the rails. There were elements of this irresponsibility in Reagan too - the reality not matching the rhetoric - but that's true of many a politician. What seems to have happened with the GOP since the late 80s has been an infusion of 'will to power' (neocons) combined with 'faith based' positive thinking (theocons). The double pronged attack seems to have completely eviscerated traditional constitutional and fiscal conservatism.

Having come from my youth on the radical left, I've really grown to admire and understand these tenets of liberty, suspicion of the wastefulness of big government, and preservation of the rights of the individual against the state. However, the natural assumption that liberals would be opposed to these things is a late invention, a socialist/communist lapel button pinned to a whole swathe of people by Hayek and Milton Friedman, in the 60s and 70s.

There is no reason on earth that real liberalism could not embrace protection of the individual against the state, civil rights, and the proper and effective use of government and power. It seems to me there is plenty of centrist ground for reasonable men and women to occupy where the liberal and conservative labels are interchangeable in many ways.

My preferred (UK based) antimony is actually between social and economic liberals, and social and economic authoritarians. Thatcher, for example, was a social authoritarian and an economic liberal. Labour governments before her were the reverse: social liberals/economic authoritarians.

Bush, and now Palin, seem to me express perfectly the scary combination of social and economic authoritarians.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:33:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Welcome to my world. (2.00 / 4)

It seems to me there is plenty of centrist ground for reasonable men and women to occupy where the liberal and conservative labels are interchangeable in many ways.

Have a seat, make yourself comfortable.  There's plenty of space to stretch out in.  Liberal ideas about freedom and equality of personal identity are actually core Conservative beliefs in these parts, and Conservative views about the best environment for economic success are fundamental Liberal requirements for raising living standards for the poor.

Where I get crankiest with political debate as a whole is when it wanders too far from the shared goals.  You get this when either an opponent of a view builds ludicrous castles of assumption based on simple statements or thoughts by the other side.  You also get it when people are just nuts or detached from reality and offer fully unbaked thoughts for How Things Should be Done.

While I clench my (teeth) about the Wild Spending Days of early Obamaland, I have a firm belief that he, at least, knows full well the downside of overly controlled economies and wants to avoid them (almost) as much as I do.  Times are just a little funny with the old economy these days, so I'm not any more surprised that a Democratic president would do what he's done than I would be if a supply-side Republican was in the WH now and he or she was behaving like a supply-side Republican.  Both arguable positions, both could work, both could fail.  But one think I know is that we don't have a "if only we could be more like Scandanavia" President in power so I'll wait and see how it works out in (relative) silence.

Conservatives like clean air and for beached to not be underwater.  Liberals like personal freedoms.

Go figure.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:47:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's only through Andrew Sullivan... (2.00 / 2)

...that I understand the term 'conservative' in the US sense. For many years, it meant 'reactionary' to me, because of course we actually have a Conservative Party, and as Tories they fought against every expansion of the vote, every civil right, from Tom Paine onwards. Then they started modelling themselves on the Party of Lincoln, and it all got mightily confusing.

But while I love being welcomed to your ground, Chris, and find ample space to stretch, sun myself, and enjoy the view, everyone has to make accommodations to share space, and it's still undecided in me which philosophy (individualist or social) best expresses the balance between individual rights, and the social and ecological costs of untrammelled individualism. Many republicans want to deny the potential human impact on global warming for example, or the fact that huge amounts of inequality (i.e. relative poverty)  impoverishes a society as much as absolute poverty. These areas are still not jointly encamped, but certainly - as you say - need something more than conviction to settle. Perhaps some proof? Some experience? Some facts?

Both left and right are guilty of ignoring data that doesn't accord to their presumptions.

On the expenditure thing, I read a fascinating article today about Richard Koo, the top analyst for Nomura Bank, who fears the Nipponisation of Western Economies. This is not a problem of high debt or excessive government spending, but of too much debt being paid off and not enough government stimulus. The basic thesis is that Japanese companies in the early nineties suddenly changed their strategy from profit maximisation to debt minimisation, and therefore ensued zero growth for over a decade. It's a slow motion single economy version of the vicious spiral that affected most economies in the 1930s.

While high government spending is worrying, depression would be much more worrying still. The amounts both Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have spent in buying up banking debts can be recouped (with profits) if people start spending again. If they don't, then the debts (and even more importantly the fear of debt) will haunt us for a generation.


Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:07:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it is coupled with a rise of an imperfect "Face" based culture (2.00 / 5)

The fear of an American "Lost Decade" is certainly well founded--though, part of the Lost Decade was based on a slow response to the difficulties that they encountered. Part of the problem with the Lost Decade was it was not just grounded in economic policy, but also grounded in the idea of losing face in the eyes of the public.

Confidence of shareholders was important, but also for not casting blame and even saying "no" can be a political and social landmine.  Conflict and the nuances of maintaining prestige, and allowing others to keep theirs is a complicated dance in most Asian nations.

And oddly, our individulist ideal is shifting more and more towards that shame and face based culture. The idea that even ludicirous claims need to be weighed and balanced is part of that--one of the unfortunate side effects of the Fairness Doctrine.  Now, it has swung wild and away, and our own version of this rising shame based vs responsibility based culture is giving time to even the economically suicidal as a measure of "fairness."

And I'm just old fashioned enough to not be comfortable with how this is playing out.  My mother's homeland has a great deal of history, but what good is history if you don't learn from it?  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:25:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll add my vote for that amorphous middle (2.00 / 4)

One of the great evils perpetrated on this country over the last few decades is the political division that has become an either/or situation. This is not a center-right country nor is it a center-left country. It is a country with a few, relatively speaking, people on the far-left and the same few on the far-right and the rest somewhere in the middle. Part of the problem is that even a small minority, like 1%, adds up to a lot of people when you are talking about a country with 300,000,000 citizens.

The Red state/Blue state divide is harmful to the country. It is true that the interests of small agricultural states don't match up with the interests of large urban states, but they still have much in common. I'm going to get a little hyperbolic here by saying 'all' when I mean 'most', but the point stands. We all want better lives for our children. We all want some financial security. We all want good health for our loved ones and ourselves. We all want a strong economy with lots of job opportunities. And as you say, we all, or almost all, want clean air and water and a healthy environment.

The country has seemed to have lost any belief in win/win situations. If liberals want something then conservatives have to be against it. If conservatives want something then liberals reflexively oppose it. Whatever happened to working together for the good of the country?

One politician has spoken out strongly against this divide. He happens to be sitting in the Oval Office. Is that an accident? Is it in spite of his wish for unity or is it because of that desire? I like to think that amorphous middle I mentioned wants the very same thing. We are tired of being at each others throats over every little thing.

It is a sad commentary on this country when a drug-addicted loser is one of the few that makes a lot of sense.

"Can't we all just get along?"  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:25:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes I've noticed that... (2.00 / 2)

In the thirty odd years I've been a regular visitor to the US. In the first decade, when I lived there in the early eighties, Britain seemed incredibly polarised in comparison. Democrats and Republicans were pretty fungible identities compared to the class warfare under Thatcher. To Tories, Labour voters were 'socialist scum', and to Labour voters, Tories were Mandela imprisoning, Argentina invading, right wing bigots. Though I went to a posh university, I wouldn't even consider dating a Tory.

The problem was in those days is the polarisation was completely either/or on most major issues from abortion, homophobia, to the Northern Ireland conflict. You read a lot of people's positions on every issue, just by what party they voted for.

In the 1990s, as both parties trimmed to centre on many issues, those old antipathies began to look stupid, and now I have several friends who vote Tory. But while the polarisation faded here, I noticed it rise in the US, with Republicans and Democrats being able to read off most their positions on most issues, mainly by party affiliation. My former partner, a US academic, said she would never consider dating a republican, and whole thing seemed to have come full circle.

It's my bet that Obama's election will continue to inspire Obamicans, and lead to a more centrist reorganisation of US politics. The implosion of the Religious Right in the GOP will probably help this process if it continues. Meanwhile, in the dog days of the Brown administration, my fear is that the centrist ground in UK politics is crumbling under our feet.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:34:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My biggest peeve is willful and cheerful ignorance (2.00 / 6)

Perhaps that the pesky education degree talking, but willful ignorance bothers me, and that is what has come to the fore with Palin and these idiot Tea Baggers and the rest of the Idiot Brigade.

There has always been a populist element to politics, but the last 15 years has seen a rise in not just populist jingoist rhetoric--that sort of Rah Rah Boy mentality that looks at politics as a game to be "won"--but it's been melded with a fear of intellectual achievement.  

America, despite being founded by intellectuals, has always had a hard relationship with the educated and thinkers.  We celebrate them, but as a whole, we've rarely trusted them. Far better, when they have feet with a wee bit of clay to them.  Jefferson was a fine soul, but far more acceptable with a mistress.

Teddy Roosevelt had a keen mind, but the bully exterior won him the hearts of the nation. What is irksome, is since Reagan, the GOP has thought to put populists in office, over those who can actually think about policy.  With the push to put Quayle in office, there has been a push to put comfortably affable and "tough" talkers in office.  This "Just folks" mentality has sucked the intellectual meat from our bones, and put an increasing pressure to appoint thinkers and strategists, as opposed to brilliant minds themselves.

Palin, Quayle, GW, are all cut from that comfortably ignorant and "plain talking" cloth--and easily manipulated by those who don't, and never will hold office. It is a strategy that has some appeal, but only for those who are clients of this sort of system, and worries a good many of the "Moderates" who've never really considered themselves terribly Moderate--as we see populists without ideas, and supporters without thought swelling the ranks, and increasingly taking the stage as our leading lights.  Yes, Rupert Murdoch, I'm looking at you.  

More, I'm worried that the 4th Estate has entirely abdicated their role, and more and more, we see media outlets less as news, but more as PR engines. Truth and intellect are becoming increasingly suspect in our politics--on both sides of the aisle.

The rise of independant media outlets has been both a boon and a curse with the increasing role of the Internet.  Especially, in light of the recent decision that Fox and other media outlets have zero responsibility to report the truth--and given the sue happy nature that looks to point the finger of defamation as a tool to supress folks from reporting the truth...

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:08:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes Rupert Murdoch... (2.00 / 2)

I'm looking at you too. Before he launched an economic salvo against the US, and brought both print and TV journalism to its knees, he first attacked the UK. Murdoch has monopolised print journalism here until its become a parody of its former self, and a pale imitation of the rigorous and extensive reporting that still goes on (just) in the US. Our papers are crap, and mainly because, with a keen eye for the bottom dollar and an even keener sense of which politicians to woo and which he should target, Murdoch turned our whole print tabloid. Even the broadsheets, such as The Times and The Sunday Times, have become under his ownership vapid wind bags of endless right wing op Eds. Reporting and comment are constantly mixed, and the political agenda has been transparent for years.

The only thing that has (kind of) saved our TV networks is the BBC. But even there Sky News has had its impact.

Rupert Murdoch has been the Harbinger of the March of Imbecility in the UK. He  had market forces on his side, but so did HBO went it made millions going upmarket. Frankly, I can't wait for him to leave the planet.

The only place I would disagree is the location of this Republican denigration of intellectuals/clever people/IQ and expertise. This seems to me to be profoundly a post war moment which McCarthy perverted (with nativist implications of foreigner/communist) and then Nixon ramped up with his Chequers speech. Liberals were intellectuals, going to opera, wearing tails and furs. It was effective, and combined with the Southern Strategy, added a Civil War complex to inverted snobbery. Many republic electoral victories ensued, exploiting wedge issues and regional or class war fare. Palin and Bush are the result: class, religious or cultural appeals to identity, and an abjuration of the basic Enlightenment principle: you can vote or make decisions based on reasonable joint interests rather than just atavistic communal instincts.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:25:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now this is the very core of the problem. (2.00 / 4)

It is OBVIOUS from what you wrote that your a stinking ELITIST. It's attitudes like your's that DRIVES good people like SARAH PALIN out of politics and KEEPS people LIKE Joe teh Plumber from running. If you damn EASTERN ELITISTS would get out of the way then the COMMON PEOPLE of this country could turn it into the PARADIZE the founders intended. Men like Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jeff Davis FOUGHT the British to win our fredoms and you elitists just want to TAKE THEM AWAY!!!1!!

Yah'll better watch out. We surround you. Palin/Wurzelbacher 2012!!!!!!1!

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:38:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is it scandal, or $$$, or ambition? (2.00 / 3)

I agree with those who are saying that this will scuttle her presidential ambitions, at least for the short term.  A person who quits after a half-term as governor of a very small state, population-wise, is not fit to be president.  My guess is that it's a cash grab while she's still relatively popular among certain people.  Any scandals/investigations would just be icing on the cake.  

What's more disturbing to me is that anyone could think of this as a good, and even praiseworthy, attempt to further her political career.  Palin strikes me as the closest thing to a reality-television candidate that we've had yet (though Samuel Wurzelbacher would take that title if he ever ran for office) - someone who obviously wasn't ready for prime time, force fed to the masses by the political machine behind her, and who could do no wrong to her core demographic simply because they are more interested in following her strange path through life than in dealing with the consequences of her decisions.  The only way that it makes sense to me is that her fans either believe that government has no effect on their daily lives, or they have so little faith in government that a politician's qualifications, or lack thereof, don't matter to them, since in either case the government will be wasteful and ineffectual.  Either way, it's a dangerous mindset for voters to have.  

---

by: rfahey22 @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 18:13:13 PM CDT

It's not just the liberal media BTW (2.00 / 2)

....even Fox news is turning on Palin post resignation.

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 19:02:35 PM CDT

Must spin harder, must spin harder (2.00 / 1)

Dammit, FOX must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel for commentary to put up Liz Trotta.  I guess that Krauthammer is on vacation...

I can't wait for George Will to weigh in on this, just to balance Charles' water carrying.

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 19:50:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And it looks like she's losing NewsMax (2.00 / 2)

Kessler's article is disturbing on another note entirely.

Her press aides say that before considering interviews, she insists that they comb through reporters' work, even if they write for a friendly, conservative publication.

And that is part of the problem today. Press as PR.  It's a thinning line, and one that there are plenty of firms who are touting the move towards more and more PR based infotainment, as opposed to actual journalism.  And oddly enough, in papers where they've already blurred the line, and on some channels that do the same.  Worse, the expectation of pols to draw "friendly" journalists is even more disturbing.

That she if finding the spotlight uncomfortable, that's what happens when you travel in the big leagues. She wanted it, she got it.  Problem is, she was neither prepared for it intellectually nor emotionally.

Sadly, she is living up to the fear of putting a beauty queen with little education or training in the political spotlight.

---

by: hubiestubert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:42:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That clinches it. (2.00 / 2)

Newsmax is the wallpaper of the GOP Halls of Power (as Rush is it's King) so if you lose that support you're pretty well done for.

Probably the harshest reporting of her yet, even.

Palin's biggest supporters have been appalled at her transformation. Just before the Alaska legislature opened this year's session, a bipartisan group of state senators invited Palin to join them on a retreat. Palin sat at one end of a conference table and listened as Gary Stevens, president of the Alaska Senate, a Republican with a reputation for congeniality, expressed pleasure that she was attending.

Smiling, Stevens asked if she would like to share some of her plans and proposals for the coming legislative session.

Palin looked around the room and paused.

"I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot," she said.

The room became silent.

"She looked ill at ease, more defensive than we've been accustomed to seeing her," said one legislator who was there.

Thus, in contrast to the self-confidence and sunny demeanor that won over so many, Palin has become a sulking, suspicious diva. Quitting the governorship with 18 months left in her term only confirms that impression.

She got in the deep water by attacking other people, it started happening to her and she had no way of coping with it.  "Honey, kids, should I stay Gov. and pace around the house all day muttering in paranoia or quit and make boatloads of money so you can all have toys?"

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:18:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

She did take on her own party memebers (2.00 / 3)

When she came into the Governor's seat, and she has made a lot of waves with the "establishment"--some of which needed to be addressed, but you have to wonder, with this article, by Kate Snow, if the woman's marbles are all there.  Department of Law?   Baseless allegations?  She was found guilty by the panel that she didn't hire.

I am thinking, more and more, that this is a woman who was just not ready for prime time, and her lack of education, and just plain sense is showing.  While some folks may say that President Obama wasn't quite seasoned enough to be put into the front runner's, you can't doubt his intelligence, and whether you like his fellow travellers or not, he has consistently surrounded himself with the very best minds this country has to offer.

The Thrilla from Wasilla, not so much...

---

by: hubiestubert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:01:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And now the NRO... (2.00 / 3)

Dang. Even NRO's Rich Lowry has lost the that lovin' feeling...  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:49:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ouch. (0.00 / 0)

She didn't want to put Alaska through the hell of a lame-duck governor who would "hit the road, draw the paycheck, and 'milk it.'" Never mind that if she feared becoming a lame duck, she could run for re-election - especially if "serving [Alaska's] people is the greatest honor I could imagine." Or that she could endeavor to work her hardest at her job until her last day in office. That may sound outlandish, but it's been done before.

The whole thing is getting so sordid and wrong that I am this close to feeling sorry for her.  On a personal level I actually do - she is a sad and uncomfortable person - but she needs to be opposed nonetheless because she promotes and symbolizes extremely dangerous ideas.  

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:38:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Am I a bad person because I can't feel any sympathy for her? (2.00 / 3)

She put herself forward. She sought the limelight and now it is too harsh and bright.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:46:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are opportunities for people to learn valuable lessons in adversity (2.00 / 4)

but she seems bound and determined to take those opportunities and waste them with recriminations and getting angry at the messengers...

---

by: hubiestubert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:49:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, she has bought and paid for her own discomfort, (2.00 / 3)

and she is going to profit mightily off these same efforts yet, so there is no need to cry for her.

I don't peg her as being crafty enough, but even the fact that she looks so pathetic right now works to her advantage.  It's hard to take shots at someone so thoroughly embarrassing themselves, and those who can't help themselves (here!) only make her supporters want to protect the Poor Thing all the more.

If you want to feel sorry for Palin, now is a good time to do it.  In a year or two she will be worth tens of millions of dollars and will be a perpetually pompous voice of irrational rantings.  At a guess she will be as hard to avoid as Rush, and as hard to feel sorry for.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:53:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No turning back for me after this one. Not one bit of sympathy. I hope this is just the start. (2.00 / 2)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

"This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America. We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for for all of us. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?"

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:33:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was just so fucking low. (2.00 / 2)

:: shakes head ::

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:33:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right, (2.00 / 2)

bury the fool.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:35:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

spiff droppings. (2.00 / 2)

hot.

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:40:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And oddly mysterious (2.00 / 2)

and sexy...

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:44:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

its the style mannnn. its that damn sexy style. (2.00 / 2)

Tastes like a little bit of heaven.

It feels so good when it hits the lips!

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:10:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That Mr. Kessler typed this with a straight face amazes me. (2.00 / 2)

On the surface, Palin has everything going for her. A rock star, she is smart, a terrific speaker, and an articulate spokesperson for Republican values.

Of course, Palin may have been a Republican rock star, but given the competition that's not saying much.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 19:49:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's just the thing, he's on *her* side, (2.00 / 1)

and he still can't bring himself to sum up anything positive about her in the end.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:55:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More fun with funds... (2.00 / 1)

This Ethics Complaint was filed April 27 of this year in relation to the legal fund setup for her, "The Alaska Fund Trust".  The thrust being that it breaks the ethical model expected of the Governor to setup a multi-million dollar legal fund for her to use as a personal defense force against any charges brought against her.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 21:53:41 PM CDT

Ethics are for little people... (2.00 / 2)

And I particularly like how she's spun the ethics investigation that she's been found in violation of.  Just entirely omits the findings of the folks who weren't apointed by her, and touts her vindication by the people she put into office...

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 22:41:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep, that was quite the bit to make me cranky during the election. (2.00 / 1)

"I was totally vindicated.  Clean sweep of all those there ethicalism charges."

Yeah, except for the ones you were determined to have breached!  You remember, the investigation you were going to cooperate and that nine people were found in contempt for refusing to cooperate with (like your husband and staff)?

No, I see you have forgotten about those.  Hard to keep so many things straight at one time, isn't it?  

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 22:47:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She is a champion of Subjective Reality (2.00 / 3)

as an operating system, as opposed to philosphical construct...

---

by: hubiestubert @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 23:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The MSM Metric: MSNBC is opening with her, FOX isn't. (2.00 / 1)

Democrats want to talk about it, Republicans don't.

For all the guessing about how this could spin positively in the direction of a political career, I have to call this theory DOA.  I bet free beer all around that we never see her in an elected position ever again.  

Nope, my guess is that it will turn out to be a simple matter of not enough fun and not enough money, both of which she can have by the cartfull as soon as she clears the state house doors.  She gets called names by (me) her opponents for running away from her commitments, but that just makes her more the hero to her Real American supporters.

(BTW, did anyone ever really believe that the top of a winning presidential ticket could be married to a "former" secessionist?)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 18:18:25 PM CDT

No, but it would have been fun watching her GOP primary opponents (2.00 / 2)

ripping her to shreds over that issue.

"(BTW, did anyone ever really believe that the top of a winning presidential ticket could be married to a "former" secessionist?)"

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 18:35:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hence why I want a party to congeal around her and Michelle Bachmann (2.00 / 2)

They want to be Conservatives first, and Republicans second.

It has bothered me for some time, because the folks who are quickest to throw out the RINO appelation are the folks who have no idea what Republicans have stood for historically.  These are the Tea Baggers, the O'Reilly nation, the Dittoheads, and more.

Let them be Conservatives first. Let them leave the party and make their own agenda.

Please.  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 20:40:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]