Here's the transcript — as printed in Huffington Post, missing innumerable commas and periods, because you wouldn't want to interfere with the incoherent-rant feeling HuffPo readers crave when the speaker is dumb, crazy Sarah.
Let's watch the whole thing:
ADDED: The Politico's headline is "Sarah Palin resigns, blasts press, 'starlets.'" Now, here's the text in the speech with the word "starlets":
Let me tell you, Alaskans really need to stick together on this with new leadership in this area especially, encouraging new leadership... got to stiffen your spine to do what's right for Alaska when the pressure mounts, because you're going to see anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood and here's how they do it. They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets, they use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-second amendment causes. Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms, and by the way, Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.In the effort to make Palin look bad, Politico exposes itself as a poor (or dishonest) reader. Palin doesn't "blast" "starlets" at all. She says that "They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets..." Who are "they"? "Anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood." She's talking about powerful media elites, not the "delicate, tiny, very talented" young people they use to convey their message.
It's compelling when a beautiful woman (Palin) seems to criticize other beautiful women (the starlets), so it's important to get it straight. Palin is — or at least appears to be — conveying her own message, but the starlets she criticizes are — as she puts it — used by others. Also, the starlets are "delicate" and "tiny," but Palin is... oh, maybe she too is delicate and tiny! But she is minimizing them, both in their individual agency and in their size. Now, there's implicit criticism in there, but she is blasting Hollywood generally, not the starlets. She's needling the starlets a bit.
पोस्ट्स
२१७ टिप्पण्या:
217 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I feel called to comment.
If only people were elected for life, this silly 'lame duck' nonsense wouldn't happen. I think that's a real problem in American Politics.
MM,
Our Dear Leader agrees and looks to remedy the situation. At least in regards to himself. Unless the more prestigious post of "World Dictator For Life" can be achieved. That would REALLY be awesome and almost commensurate with his ego.
More of Wailin' Palin's cry-baby quitter whining. She's still in her first term as governor; even assuming a second term would give her "lame duck" status--and who says no elected officials in their acknowledged final term can ever achieve significant results from their work?--she's not even there yet.
She's shitting on the very people she claims to "love" and who, astonishingly, don't see her as the opportunistic, self-serving charlatan she is.
Ooooh, more Althouse Hillbilly red meat. Yum-yum...
Robert Cook...Calm down. She is not even nominated yet. Maybe you and Sarah can have a beer together and learn from one another.
Perhaps we should change the Constitution to make the minimum age 50 for the presidency. Potential presidents should have more experience and a longer track record than either Obama had in 2008 or Palin will have in 2012 before assuming the office.
It seems like a standard boilerplate speech to me -- and who can't see Tina Fey at the start.
Anyway, I disagree that Alaska has the most patriotic, sacrificing citizens. Look to Wisconsin for that. For all ex-Governor Palin's blather about not taking Federal dollars, Alaska is in the top 10 for taking more money from DC than sending it.
..don't see her as the opportunistic, self-serving charlatan she is.
If Palin is an opportunistic, self-serving charlatan I shudder to think what else other than an 'opportunistic, self-serving charlatan' Obama can be. (see Skip Gates incident)
"For all ex-Governor Palin's blather about not taking Federal dollars, Alaska is in the top 10 for taking more money from DC than sending it."
Of course that can't be because the Federal government owns 65% of the land in Alaska.
Palin's cheerleading probably fills in for the right reason for conclusions, as if the conclusions would be enough to offer.
That's the book learning she's missing.
The effect is a sort of stupid populism on the right.
Obama on the other hand doesn't even have the right conclusions.
If she is 'handled' well and gets some good advise and direction on key national issues like ENERGY, TAX REFORM, RUNAWAY NATIONAL SPENDING, and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, Palin could be a force in the next 3 years.
Ann,
That is a brilliant sentence: — as printed in Huffington Post, missing innumerable commas and periods, because you wouldn't want to interfere with the incoherent-rant feeling HuffPo readers crave when the speaker is dumb, crazy Sarah.
Robert Cook wrote:
She's shitting on the very people she claims to "love"
Well now which is Robert? Are you saying that she was such a great Governor that she is hurting the state by stepping out? Or is she the lame brain you want to make her out to be, which means you should be happy that Alaska is saved from the rest of a Palin tenure.
Can't have it both ways, man.
Robert Cook - just caught you with your pants down, buddy (Please don't bend over!).
Robert Cook...Calm down. She is not even nominated yet. Maybe you and Sarah can have a beer together and learn from one another.
We couldn't be sure that Sarah would have a beer with anyone who isn't in her "Real America". She seems like the kind of person who would just as much claw you than shake your hand.
Can anyone translate this part?
I remember that, and remember it was because we would be different. We'd roll up our sleeves, and we would diligently sow and reap, and we can still do this to carve wealth out of the wilderness and make our living on the water, with strong hands and innovative minds, now with smarter technology. It is what our first people and our parents did. It worked, because they worked. We must be prudent and persistent and press for the people's right to responsibly develop God-given resources for the maximum benefit of the people..
Well now which is Robert? Are you saying that she was such a great Governor that she is hurting the state by stepping out? Or is she the lame brain you want to make her out to be, which means you should be happy that Alaska is saved from the rest of a Palin tenure.
Alaska is our version of a petro-state. Paula Abdul couldn't screw that up, and might actually be a bit more coherent. I say if Alaksa wants her then they should get to keep her. Theirs nothing mutually exclusive about your points.
Garage - She's talking energy and natural resources, bro!
She's shitting on the very people she claims to "love" and who, astonishingly, don't see her as the opportunistic, self-serving charlatan she is.
I love it when the far left is 'shocked shocked shocked' when people refuse to see the world through their distorted, crabby and misogynistic lenses.
Could it be that people who are not 'you', Robert Cook, might have a different and valid viewpoint. Naaaahh. No way. Unless you toe the liberal line, you are a hillbilly, stupid c*nt.
The Robert Cooks of the world may be surprised at just how many hillbillies are out there in fly over land and how much in disdain we hold the Robert Cooks of the world.
You are also going to be surprised in 2010 and 2012. You need us, (the people who work, pay the taxes,create jobs, grow your food, transport your food and allow you to tend to your itty bitty city ways). We don't need you.
garage,
No - I can't. Just recognizing that she needs a good bit of refinin'.
But I still like Sarah Palin. Doesn't yet mean that I would vote for her for anything yet. But if she is smart - and this is the test, I guess - she will seek that refining and learning. That will be the test after all. And she won't have to go quite as far in searching out those 2 things to start capturing hearts and minds; just showing the effort and small, but distinct, improvements, well timed publicly, will do wonders. Then, if she keeps at it, it is completely within the realm of likelihood that she could be a contender for major national office, possibly the Presidency as early as 2016.
Counting her out without watching over the next 18 months for those changes and improvements is a sure suckers bet.
I’m left to ponder whether Governor Palin criticized starlets more than David Letterman criticized her daughter.
I wonder whether I can trademark "Hillbillies for Sarah 2012" and makes some serious retirement money.
Theirs nothing mutually exclusive about your points.
I-Man,
You are smarter than me - I got spanked a couple of times by your comments, I admit it. But c'mon -you get the point. One doesn't have to be a Palin admirer to reject the silly argument that she is letting down the people of her state by resigning early. It is purely an effort to cloud the issue. If someone wants to make the case about the resignation showing her character in not finishing something - fair argument, and it would have to include every politician who sought higher and achieved higher office and did not finish the first office term they were elected for. I for one admire her guts here, but that is still not enough to make me vote to elevate her to another office yet.
But what we hear the majority of the time - and Huff Post had no less than 6 bloggers comment on just the "quitter" part the very day of her announcement - is the "learned" position of hey - she shouldn't quit the governorship from the very same people that over and over told us how terrible she was for Alaska as governor.
So, yes, the points ARE mutually exclusive.
Bissage -
"I’m left to ponder whether Governor Palin criticized starlets more than David Letterman criticized her daughter."
I'm pretty sure Palin didn't joke about A-Rod raping any of them...
"Palin blasts media, needles starlets".
Now that headline I would have read. Blasting the media? We all know how that goes. But a politician standing up to the starlets, and needling them? News I can use.
I'm trying to decide about needling... Didn't Palin merely invoke starlets to define "circuses from Hollywood"? Blasts media, invokes starlets.
Well, Palin herself is a kind of starlet. Her mere presence, her mere existence, invokes starlets.
Ah, I think I get it...
If starletism is anti-starlet bigotry and starletarianism is a political system of rule by starlets, what path will America chose?
I wonder whether I can trademark "Hillbillies for Sarah 2012" and makes some serious retirement money.
I'm creating a bumper sticker for my car with that as we speak . . .
Paul, don't make excuses for lying politicians. It only encourages them.
garage -
If you're having trouble with the translation, it's OK. As soon as you graduate from your "English As a Second Language" course it will all become much clearer.
Especially if you don't try stupid rhetorical tricks like pulling a quote away from its context.
You're really slipping. Try better next time.
choose?
Invisible -
"She seems like the kind of person who would just as much claw you than shake your hand."
Project much?
Robert Cook -
"She's still in her first term as governor; even assuming a second term would give her "lame duck" status--and who says no elected officials in their acknowledged final term can ever achieve significant results from their work?--she's not even there yet."
Evidently you have absolutely zero understanding of the phrase "lame duck."
Once you have decided not to seek re-election to an office, you are - by definition - a lame duck.
Palin was a "lame duck" effective July 3rd when she announced her resignation.
If you're going to criticize someone for being a charlatan, then you really shouldn't pretend to knowledge you don't have in the very same post.
"Tiny and delicate." Who does that refer to? Susan Sarandon is tiny, but not delicate, not at all.
David "polar bear" Duchovny is both tiny and delicate. We know Sarah wants them all killed, according to David. But I think Sarah only wants the tiny delicate ones killed.
Invisible -
"Theirs nothing mutually exclusive about your points."
Wrong. Evidently she managed to get a pipeline deal done that no governor before her was able to get done, and I'm pretty sure that Paula Abdul wouldn't have been up to the task unless you know something about Paula Abdul that the rest of the world doesn't.
For someone who demands intellectual rigor and absolute proof before any criticism can be made of Obama, you're awfully sloppy and all over the place when it comes to Palin.
Just shows how much emotion and how little actual thought goes into your posts about her.
MadisonMan -
"Paul, don't make excuses for lying politicians. It only encourages them."
It's also extraordinarily misleading to criticize Palin for the amount of federal dollars which go to Alaska given the sheer size of the state and the massive amounts of money it takes to build infrastructure there.
Let's take the amount of money which has been spent over the years building infrastructure in the number of states that it would take to equal the geographic expanse of Alaska and make a fair comparison rather than purely a per capita basis.
The federal government has poured billions upon billions of dollars into California over the years building up its infrastructure dating back to long before Alaska even became a state. Now because we already invested the money there and Alaska is playing catch-up that doesn't count at all?
There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are BS statistics which are completely distorted to tell even bigger lies.
Reverse political bs.
Instead of hanging on to power as exemplified by our Congress critters, her love of Alaska demands that she nobly sacrifice power but this only as a maneuver for greater power (she hopes) down the road.
Ambition can creep as well as soar. - Edmund Burke
"... that I feel it is my duty to avoid the unproductive, typical, politics as usual, lame duck session..." Dammit Sarah, you keep on making my point: it was your duty to finish your term. It is not about you, it is about the promise you made to the citizens of your state when you were sworn in.
By your definition, Sarah, you would not seek a second term as president.
Dammit Sarah, I want to think that you are the last best hope for conservative principles on the national stage. But you dug yourself a deep hole with this quitting thing; I hope you can, and wait to see you climb out of it.
Palin herself cautions against accepting money from DC at the same time she's funneling it it.
Don't make excuses for lying politicians. It only encourages them.
If you want, I can pro-rate the imbalance of federal money received vs. sent by population. Maybe that'll seem "fair" to you.
Palin said, "I resisted the stimulus package...."
Yeah, right. She took 69%, or about $642 million, of the $930 million that was available to Alaska.
She also talks about a goal of self determination for Alaska. Except they have a LONG way to go for that. Alaska ranks third in getting the most Federal dollars per capita. Last year it was $13,730 spent per capita.
She [and many Republicans] play this libertarian game and voters eat it up - but dig a little deeper and you find it's just not true. They do take lots of Federal dollars while pretending they don't need them.
Last year the the Federal government spent nearly $2.79 trillion domestically in all 50 states. [Under Bush] It's time for the Palin's of the world to stop pretending like they don't need Federal dollars. They do. And it's okay that they do.
Whoa!
Not ONE, ONE post about this woman's breasts from Titus yet!
And here I thought that Titus had the hankering for Todd.
john -
"Dammit Sarah, you keep on making my point: it was your duty to finish your term. It is not about you, it is about the promise you made to the citizens of your state when you were sworn in."
You can make that very same argument about Barack Obama and Joe Biden or any other politician who gives up their office to seek a higher one. Just look at the present administration and you can name Sebelius and Napolitano as governors who failed in their "duty to finish their term."
By your definition, only a politician who is not currently serving in any office at all even has the right to so much as campaign for another office as it is an inherent violation of their "oath" to do anything other than the business of the people who elected them in the first place.
If you're going to start condemning every politician who has done the very same thing, Palin comes way down on the list of hundreds, if not thousands, who have done the very same thing.
Matt -
"Yeah, right. She took 69%, or about $642 million, of the $930 million that was available to Alaska."
Let's compare that to the percentage taken by the governors of the other 49 states (or 57 if you do ObamaMath). Where does Alaska fall on that list?
See my previous post about the lies of the per capita federal spending.
In addition, as a West Virginia blogger points out about misleading statistics told about his state, a large fraction of those "federal dollars" are social service dollars (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) which are paid directly to individuals - not to government at any level. Including that money is as evidence of the Alaskan state government feeding at the federal trough is downright dishonest.
When you're ready to present more honest statistics, then we can talk.
Matt -
"She [and many Republicans] play this libertarian game and voters eat it up - but dig a little deeper and you find it's just not true."
As a further point, are the citizens of Red States not entitled to the very taxes that they pay into the federal government, or is it the obligation of Red States to simply pay for boondoggles in Blue States?
The conservative line is that the money should never have left the state because the federal government shouldn't be taking such a big piece of the pie in the first place. It has never been that conservatives should pay federal taxes and then not get any of their money back at all.
If you're going to claim to know what constitutes hypocrisy of a conservative/libertarian argument then you owe to everyone, including yourself, to at least have the first clue what that argument is. To do otherwise only embarrasses you when you make inane arguments like this.
Sara, Sara,
Whatever made you want to change your mind?
Sara, Sara,
So easy to look at, so hard to define.
MM -
"If you want, I can pro-rate the imbalance of federal money received vs. sent by population. Maybe that'll seem "fair" to you."
Just make sure you make the appropriate corrections for geography and remove all monies sent to individuals, organizations or local governments over which she has no control if you're going to make an argument that somehow Palin is so much worse than other governors.
Jim
Well if Obama resigned to run, he would have had only 1 or 2 days total senatorial experience. On the other hand, Biden sat 36 totally useless years as a senator, except to himself, his family, and MBNA.
But I digress. Neither Obama nor Biden resigned to run, so I don't see what your point is.
Sarah hasn't "resigned to run" either, has she? Did she announce her candidacy for the senate, or set up a presidential exploratory committee?
I've learned that LE Lee is another Titus sock puppet. It's the only logical explanation.
john -
"But I digress. Neither Obama nor Biden resigned to run, so I don't see what your point is."
First, the point is that just because you don't resign doesn't mean that you're fulfilling your oath. Obama didn't show up for his job for 2 years, but he still kept collecting his paycheck and he denied the state of Illinois the opportunity to select a replacement for him that would have been willing to actually fulfill the oath in the meantime. The position he took was actually much worse for the people of the state of Illinois than the one that Obama took. Ditto for Biden. Are you going to demand that they give back their salaries for the time they spent on the campaign trail? How about McCain? How about every politician that leaves behind their duties in pursuit of higher office?
Your position is indefensible. You're setting up one standard for Palin that you refuse to hold every other politician to. Unless of course it's your position that essentially defrauding your constituents by taking their money without doing the job you were hired to do is somehow morally superior to refusing to do so. Is that what you're trying to say here?
As far as what Palin has or hasn't announced, that's a ludicrous charge to make given the abusive ethics filings over the last year. She was hit with filings over her travel as a VP candidate, wearing a jacket with a logo, holding a fish, answering reporters questions, etc. If she had announced that she was going to run for office before she left it, she would have been hit with even more ethics filings.
Again, you're holding her to an impossible standard. Announce and open herself up to more ethics filings and personal liability for legal fees. Don't announce and you're "abandoning your people."
There's really no other word for that than moronic. This is the real world.
Also I've learned that African-Americans want nothing to do with MY America, self-segregation. MLK Jr would be weeping.
correction:
...much worse than the one that PALIN took...
Dammit Sarah, you keep on making my point: it was your duty to finish your term. It is not about you, it is about the promise you made to the citizens of your state when you were sworn in.
(snip)
Dammit Sarah, I want to think that you are the last best hope for conservative principles on the national stage. But you dug yourself a deep hole with this quitting thing; I hope you can, and wait to see you climb out of it.
Not at all, john. Most people with any sense at all can see that she made a good decision.
When your mere presence draws constant and frivolous ethics attacks that impede not only your own ability to get the job of governing the State done, but also creates chaos and unnecessary work for the others in the government, the wise thing to do is to step aside.
I wasn't her 'duty' to finish her term. It was her duty to do the right thing for her State and for the people of the State.
Sure, Palin could have stayed in the Governor's office, but the State, the governance and any benefit to the people of the State would have been stalled and embroiled by partisan hacks and biased media dogs. By leaving, she now frees the government to be able to function and she frees herself to be able to pursue more productive things......like supporting conservatives, Republican AND Democrat.
She did the right thing by stepping down.
The liberals who hate her and who hate everything she represents wanted her to stay, hamstrung and helpless as Governor. She trick-f*ucked them by doing the unexpected.
I'd rather belong to Palin's America then Robert Cook's any day.
"I'd rather belong to Palin's America then Robert Cook's any day."
Amen.
The Robert Cooks of the world are the dupes totalitarians rely on to come to power.
They are also among the first to visit the gulags and graveyards that inevitably follow.
Palin has a future with this small govt mantra. The people are sick of politicians promising everything but delivering zip nada nothing.
Jim, where did I say she was worse than any other governor?
All I say, and I think it is indisputable, despite your best efforts, is that if you as a Governor (or ex-Governor) loudly proclaim against taking federal handouts at the same time you preside over a state with a hand deep deep deep in the federal pocket, you are demonstrably hypocritical.
Is this rambling post a type of tribute to Palin, in imitation of her style? Is there a point?
More evidence of how African American self segregate: Skip Gates being a "professor of African American studies". I'm sorry but that is so blatantly awful and racist and has NO place in our society. I challenge our wonder-trolls to defend such a post.
Madison Man - if Palin gets her act together she will be laughing last and your side will be weeping.
Beth - you seem to hate Sarah Palin. What did she ever do to you?
So a term is only important to serve if you think you'll be getting a second term.
And don't criticize Palin or you're makin' stuff up and hurtin' the military and those patriotic people in the really, really patriotic parts of America.
I'm just so jealous that she's so pretty!
Beth - you do sound very jealous of Sarah Palin. Also she seems to have hit a nerve!
Alex, I'm curious: What is 'my side'?
Do keep in mind that I'm an American Citizen in your answer.
The Robert Cooks of the world may be surprised at just how many hillbillies are out there in fly over land and how much in disdain we hold the Robert Cooks of the world.
I'm trying to figure out how that "disdain" is more noble than the "hillbilly c*nt" attitude you assume on the part of the Robert Cooks of the world. Is it a more patriotic disdain? A more hard-workin', heartland kind of disdain?
Beth - do you have something against working class people who like Sarah Palin?
The sooner we explode the left's sacred cows on race, class and gender the faster we can truly MOVE ON as a society. Somehow I suspect Althouse is 100% for that, but is afraid to verbalize.
As the Sarah Express gains speed and her rhetoric sharpens until it starts cutting deeper and deeper into liberal Myths of the Day, the backlash is already starting up a new set of Big Bad Sarah memes. She is now it seems a Vixen, and a Slammer of our innocent bi-partisan media, and a reciever of money for books and speeches, not to mention being the most investigated Governor in Alaska history. So no having a friendly beer and chat will never be offered to the Sarah Monster from any liberal. She simply cannot be allowed by them to be seen as another human being. Wait until they dig up more weird Christianist acquaintances lurking in her family's dark past and publicly believing in the scary God of traditional Americans.
So a term is only important to serve if you think you'll be getting a second term.
Beth. You are missing the point. You are smarter than this.
Palin was unable to fulfill her duties as Governor due to the interference by outside political operatives and the constant foolish ethics charges that took away her time, the time of many others in the government and made it impossible for her to do her job.
To use the sports analogy, (and I don't even like sports) she became a target and all of the opposition team was focused on her. The right thing to do for the "team" was to step aside, "pass the ball" to an open player and let the other player proceed. While the opposition is still focused on her the rest of the team can try to win that particular game.
Just because she has passed the ball, doesn't mean that she has quit the game.
MM -
"All I say, and I think it is indisputable, despite your best efforts, is that if you as a Governor (or ex-Governor) loudly proclaim against taking federal handouts at the same time you preside over a state with a hand deep deep deep in the federal pocket, you are demonstrably hypocritical."
It's hypocritical if you prove that she is somehow worse than other governors in this regard. That would show that she is saying one thing while doing another. If, on the other hand, your best evidence is a completely flawed "statistic" then you haven't proven anything except that you're willing to believe what somebody has told you about what those numbers mean without being willing to do the hard work of critically examining those numbers for yourself.
I'm willing to hear that Palin has been hypocritical if such evidence exists. I'm not interested in yet another "say one thing, then do another" politician: we've already got one of those in White House as it is. The problem is that no one has yet produced any.
Show me some honest numbers, and we can have an honest discussion. If you can tease out the numbers as I indicated, then by all means let's talk about where Alaska falls in comparison to the other 49 states, how that compares to what those numbers looked like under previous Alaskan administrations, and what those trendlines show.
Until all those facts are in hand though, any claim to refute her assertions is specious.
DBQ - it's ok. As long as we understand what Palin did is smart politics, the liberals like Beth can flail about in their stupidity and faux caring.
"The conservative line is that the money should never have left the state because the federal government shouldn't be taking such a big piece of the pie in the first place."
And the biggest piece of the pie in Alaska is taken in the form of absolutely forbidding economic development.
People in Alaska don't even have the chance to pay their federal taxes and not get them back.
How about pro-rating the govt share going to Alaska being compared to the portion of the state owned by the federal govt. That would be a better basis for comparison.
Jim - as our trolls seem to indicate there is only one viable way to be a presidential nominee and that is serving 2 full terms as governor. So let's look at 2-term governor Barack Obama, errr never mind.
Jim and DBQ (and Sy from last night):
I disagree. You both seem to want so hard to believe that Palin came down from heaven to save us that you won't continence any criticism of her from either friends or foes. All I'm saying is that she should not have quit. It hurts her credibility, and it also hurts her from an experience level.
And don't say that Obama has less experience. That's old; everyone knows that. But in 2012, Obama will have 4 years executive experience and growing, Palin will have had two years, and not growing.
This just hurts her, and as I said earlier, she dug this hole, now it remains to see how she can climb out of it.
Beth -
"So a term is only important to serve if you think you'll be getting a second term."
Evidently Obama, Biden, Napolitano, Sebelius, et al didn't think so.
Beth - thanks for your faux caring, but you never uttered a peep about all the frivolous ethics charges coming out of Rahm Emmanuel's office. Yeah we all know that's where it's from. Look I'm a Jew and I hate that guy, he makes all Jews look awful.
DBQ, she's all yours. If you don't mind her quitting, then by all means, cheer her on.
john -
"You both seem to want so hard to believe that Palin came down from heaven to save us that you won't continence any criticism of her from either friends or foes."
Wrong. All I'm saying is that you can't hold Palin to a different standard than you hold everyone else to. If you're going to say that she did something wrong, then you are also condemning every other politician who - for whatever reason - didn't complete their term.
You steadfastly refuse to do so. This whole business of claiming that I believe "Palin came down from heaven" is nonsense built on foolishness surrounded by stupidity.
You're the one who made the argument. All I'm saying is that you need to be consistent in that argument. Trying to wiggle out of your inconsistency by ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold isn't going to wash.
"I'm trying to figure out how that "disdain" is more noble than the "hillbilly c*nt" attitude you assume on the part of the Robert Cooks of the world. Is it a more patriotic disdain? A more hard-workin', heartland kind of disdain?"
Is it difficult to understand that I, and many many others throughout the country, resent being labeled and denigrated by the likes of Cook and Lee as hillbilies and racists and all sorts of other names because we disagree politically? There is no assumption of his attitude. I don't need to guess. He and several others have made themselves quite clear.
I have disdain for such small intellects. Small, because they refuse to address the issues of a debate and fall into name calling.
Disdain for them, in the I want to scrape this dog poop off of my shoes type of disdain.
So she's quitting now, to run for President, a race that doesn't start for two years? Okay. That makes sense.
My one consolation of having to deal with all these idiot trolls is that Althouse keeps putting up threads that absolutely infuriate them.
Let's be consistent.
Palin's resignation is very very unusual but so is the unrelenting spotlight from the MSM and from the Kos Kook types on the losing VP candidate.
How much more money and time has the MSM spent on travel to Alaska to investigate Palin compared to travel to Hawaii and Chicago to investigate Obama?
Beth - ummm Palin didn't announce anything about 2012. It's just your side that seems to think so. You seem awfully afraid about a woman you keep insisting is a joke. Which is it?
It's hypocritical if you prove that she is somehow worse than other governors in this regard.
Jim, the everyone else is doing it excuse doesn't work for my kids either.
I do not claim she is somehow worse than other governors in this regard. She suggests it's a good thing not to take the money, when that's what she does. That's a good example of hypocrisy.
"Not at all, john. Most people with any sense at all can see that she made a good decision."
Or at least not an obviously bad decision.
We simply can't say just how impossible the attacks on her were making her job. On the one hand there is the "photo with a fish", "logo on a jacket", "talked to reporters in her office", charges that were all bogus and thrown out and then there was the one that sticks, the *only* one that sticks, is that because she's in Alaska she CAN NOT have a legal defense fund.
People have the idea that these frivolous charges simply MUST be a nuisance and nothing more and that any reasonably tenacious person should show that they are tough enough for the job by sticking it out and finishing her term and probably even running for a second term and letting her staff do her job while she campaigns for Pres next time.
And maybe that would be true anywhere else.
But she's not even allowed to form a legal fund.
It seems likely that quitting and refusing to be bankrupted and refusing to stay and "take it" is exactly the right thing to do.
In fact the left thinks they have a victory in ousting her from office with all these frivolous ethics charges. Like in Star Wars, "if you strike me down I will become more powerful then you can possibly imagine".
Beth -
"So she's quitting now, to run for President, a race that doesn't start for two years?"
Presidential campaigns begin long before the first primary is held, but you already knew that. A national-level organization must be built, markers must be earned, policy positions must be determined, etc., etc.
Obama began his run for president in 2004 with his speech. McCain began his long before 2000 came around. Romney and Huckabee already have organizations in place from their 2008 bids.
But somehow it's realistic that Palin could make up all that ground if she didn't do a thing between now and the end of 2010 - keeping in mind that every time she so much as breathes on the Alaska taxpayers' dime she is hit by another spurious ethics charge?
Beth, you're much, much smarter than this. Maybe you're being snarky for snarkiness' sake, but this isn't an intellectually honest argument to make.
I've concluded that Beth is not a nice liberal, but just another variation on the nasty kind.
McArthur Genius Grant recipient George Saunders offers an unassailable defense of Palin on her own terms.
You both seem to want so hard to believe that Palin came down from heaven to save us that you won't continence any criticism of her from either friends or foes. All I'm saying is that she should not have quit. It hurts her credibility, and it also hurts her from an experience level.
You have no idea what I believe so don't pretend and do NOT put words in my mouth.
I have no illusions that Palin is a saviour. I think she might galvanize conservatives and right leaning moderates. I doubt that she will run for President in 2012. I see her more as a rainmaker than an actual candidate.
Quiting did not hurt her credibility except to those who don't matter or to whom she can do nothing right. In fact her credibility is higher precisely because she did step down from her position so to the betterment of her State and her constituents. The fact that you cannot even consider that is telling.
Typical straw men the left likes to throw around.
Meme: Conservatives believe Sarah Palin is THE savior right now
Fact: Palin has the potential to be a big figure in the GOP, and must work hard the next several years.
Liberals like Beth would keep pushing the Meme.
Synova -
"the one that sticks, the *only* one that sticks, is that because she's in Alaska she CAN NOT have a legal defense fund"
Even that one's not going to stick. What was leaked (illegally) was a preliminary report from the investigator which claimed that she benefitted from the Legal Defense Fund. She and her attorney hadn't even yet had the opportunity to respond to the findings. That's why it's illegal to leak these findings: it creates a false presumption of guilt.
Several problems with the investigator's assertion:
1) She didn't run the defense fund and the trustee says she never had contact with Palin.
2) Neither she nor her lawyers have received a dime from it.
3) It wasn't run out of or in any way connected to the governor's office.
If you look at the subsequent events including the statement(s) from her attorney as well as the fund trustee, it's pretty easy to see that this one is going to ultimately fail as well.
Amazing chutzpa by the left. They have the national Democrats engage in a jihad against her by filing all these faux ethics charges, then when she has the temerity to try to raise money to fight them they say UNETHICAL! This is almost as brazen as the Nazis law that a Jew couldn't fight back against their murderers in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Jim, you want to compare Palin's decision to quit now with other politicians' decisions to run for a higher office - but the examples you offer are of people who didn't quit at all, or not until they won higher office. Those are not apt comparisons. Her "lame duck" description is silly. If she quit because she got tired of the various attacks, she should just say so, and stop trying to cast it as a "lame duck" session.
You're smart enough to not continually twist yourself in pretzel logic.
Palin is a constant source of drama, and that's worthy of a little good-natured snark now and then.
BTW I did not say she initiated this defense fund. But in my mind, she is perfectly justified in using it although she won't.
Beth - you are a POS. You know that Palin quit because your dear leader and his operatives engaged in a jihad against the office she ran. Then when she is forced to quit - you pile on further. So much for "liberal compassion". FOAD.
So she's quitting now, to run for President, a race that doesn't start for two years? Okay. That makes sense.
Well, Beth, it worked for the present incumbent, didn't it? I can't think of anyone who suggests that Barack Obama put any effort into his job as a senator after the summer of 2006.
Jim said... Wrong. All I'm saying is that you can't hold Palin to a different standard than you hold everyone else to.
Jim, where did I bring up holding Palin to a "different standard"? Re-read my comments, because I deliberately tried to keep them oriented toward Palin's actions only, her "duty to avoid", and her responsibility to the state.
How is that "moronic"? Also Jim, if you can't recognize your (Palin's) friends, how will you recognize your (Palin's) enemies?
Somewhat OT, but if we had a national "resign to run" law, do you think it would eliminate every senator from considering a run for president? It would be nice to think so.
Barack the magic Zero is allowed everything. He can quit after 1 year of being a mostly absent Senator to run for President, and that is A-OK with Beth-types. Excuse me while I barf.
Big Mike, is she running for something or not? Some of her fans here get upset at the suggestion that she's running for president, while others seem to take it for granted.
That's the Palin drama I enjoy - and look forward to more of.
I have no idea what Obama did as a Senator after 2006 - I'll take your word for it since you've surely researched it.
Fortunately I think Althouse has more common sense and compassion to continue the "let's pile on Sarah Palin". Althouse knows that the DNC orchestrated the flood of ethics complaints to paralyze her office and force her to either:
* be paralyzed and ruin her family
* or quit and call her a quitter
They think they've won, but if Sarah works hard we will be the ones laughing last at RahmBo and his Alinskyite ghouls.
Do we have any reasonable liberals on this blog? It seems that they're all left-wing trolls.
to compare Palin's decision to quit now with other politicians' decisions to run for a higher office - but the examples you offer are of people who didn't quit at all, or not until they won higher office.
So is it more noble to continue in your job, collect a paycheck, while you are shortchanging your constituents? You are not doing your actual job or at least not giving it your full attention while running for a higher office.
I used the analogy before and I will repeat it.
You are a teacher. How would you feel about a teacher who instead of spending class time teaching the students or spending time preparing effective classroom lessons, spend all his/her time studying for a higher degree? The students are not getting an education and the teacher is spending the taxpayer's money on his/her personal advancement.
Gee....but at least the teacher didn't 'quit'. So much better don't you think to literally steal time and money in your own career advancement than to just step aside and let someone actually ...oh you know....teach the class while you spend your time on your own self advancement.
BTW, over on Megan McCardle's blog she gets called all kinds of names for having the temerity to state reality about the Democrats. You see the left-wingers will NOT tolerate dissent even from a reliable liberal Democrat like McCardle. Althouse must know what it feels like getting similar treatment at the hands of Jeremy-types.
DBQ - this isn't about fairness or a debate. Beth, Robert Cook and all the rest of them want to gloat and cackle about "Sarah the quitter".
Beth...What the heck was Moses doing out in the desert so many years after he quit his role in the Egyptian government. His timing was suspect to say the least. (FYI: Moses was a Jewish writer famous for expository writing called the Torah)
She didn't quit. She's just advancing the ball in different direction than forward.
Beth -
"Jim, you want to compare Palin's decision to quit now with other politicians' decisions to run for a higher office - but the examples you offer are of people who didn't quit at all, or not until they won higher office. "
So it's your position that it is morally superior to deny your constituents the opportunity to have a replacement who will devote their full attention to doing their business while simultaneously collecting a paycheck for performing a job that you have no intention of doing?
Because that's exactly what you're saying.
I beg to differ. If you're not going to be, ready, willing and able to do the job; then quit and I'll find someone else who is.
Obama (and many others - not to single him out, but it's the most relevant example in the instant) said "Nope. I'll keep collecting my paycheck anyway. Y'all can just stick it if you want someone to look out for your interests while I'm busy looking out for me. If things don't work out, then I guess I'll think about coming back and doing the job."
Here's the difference between our logic:
If one of my employees spent his entire day surfing Monster.com for a new job and redoing his resume rather than the work I assigned him, I'd fire him in a heartbeat.
But you'd keep him around until he tested the job market, went on a few interviews and found out whether he could get a better deal somewhere else. In the meantime, his work would be piling up, and the end of it either you'd have a dissatisfied employee who'd rather be somewhere else and is just killing time until something else comes along, or a new employee who walks in on years of unfinished work.
I don't know of many CEOs who would choose your path over mine, but if that's the way you want to run yours then that's up to you.
She didn't quit. She's just advancing the ball in different direction than forward
Now you get it. (I know you really don't. You are too obtuse)
Haven't you ever watched a basketball game, a football game? You don't always win by just mindlessly plowing down the court or the field. Sometimes you do have to go lateral or even backwards to get around the opposition.
I can't believe I'm using sports analogies. LOL I hate watching basketball or football.
"Beth. You are missing the point. You are smarter than this."
Native intelligence is only one component, and arguably not the most important, in developing critical thinking skills. The others are a scrupulous regard for honesty, and courage.
These last two attributes are mocked in the post-modernist worldview and leftists, sometimes knowingly but mostly through acculturation, simply do not cultivate these traits which require discipline and fortitude.
The problem with the leftists here is not one of intelligence (though it can be argued that intellectual dishonesty breeds a willful stupidity) but rather one of character and far too much effort is wasted trying to debate with them in good faith.
Better to use Allinsky's tactics against them. Their lack of courage and thin skins makes them particularly vulnerable to unremitting ridicule.
How would you feel about a teacher who instead of spending class time teaching the students or spending time preparing effective classroom lessons, spend all his/her time studying for a higher degree?
False dilemma. People often do both. Lots of people work full-time and go to school in the evenings. I am not rejecting your point, but this is a bad example for it.
You're not disturbed that, mid-term, this elected official chooses to quit and call it avoiding being a "lame duck." That's fine. I find it bizarre. Since she's not beholden to me, as I'm neither an Alaskan voter nor likely to vote GOP for the presidential race, that's also fine. I'm calling it how I see it. As far as what others do when they run for office, she's not running for office, so how is this relevant?
Synova, is it true that establishing a Legal Defense fund is illegal in AK? (As you state at 12:04) That seems like a foolish law that should be changed.
BTW, over on Megan McCardle's blog she gets called all kinds of names for having the temerity to state reality about the Democrats.
First, McCardle is a self-described libertarian. I know that spelling might not be your strong suit, but she's not a liberal.
Second, but what about Meghan McCain who unlike McCardle actually considers herself one of your tribe, yet gets called all manner of names having nothing to do with whether or not she's smarter than Palin. Or, even better read some of the "Ace of Spades" around Palin's resignation. He of the thoroughly conservative, right-wing and Republican background, was called every name in the book because he dared to question Princess Sarah's worthiness for office. They called him a traitor, a RINO, and a whole lot of language not suited for children.
Because that's exactly what you're saying.
No, it isn't. Palin didn't quit to run for office, not according to any declaration she's made. I am commenting on the willingness of her fans to appeal to any reason to praise her decision. "She's more noble than other people who hold one office while running for another!" But she's not declared as running for another office. "Oh, well, then, she's quitting because she's under relentless attack!" or "She's advancing the ball in a differnent direction!" What game is she in? Being governor? Or just being something, anything, in the public eye? A figurehead for the GOP? What's her point?
Again, I'm just an observer. People who might actually support her in future runs are the ones who have to care what she's all about. If you're fine with her actions, then good for you.
Jim
You are making a double argument that goes in opposite directions. You say the money should have never left the states anyway. Fine. But is Alaska paying that much money to the Federal government in taxes?
Answer: NO.
Also don't be absurd about the statistics lying line. I presented per capita dollar figures for all to see. No smoke screen. And you are actually incorrect. The money that goes to Alaska does not go to social services. Look it up. Alaska has military salaries and procurement and transportation grants to pay for. WHICH IS FINE BTW. It makes sense that they get alot of Federal dollars. That is not my argument.
I am simply trying to set the record straight. If you get a lot of Federal dollars do not pretend like you don't need that money. Palin only does this because it is a Red Meat issue that voters eat up.
So, again, I am not criticizing the states for taking Federal dollars. I think it is absolutely fine for states to take what they need, what they deserve, etc.
What I don't like is the disingenuous stance of Republican governors to claim they don't need Federal money and how it is some evil thing.
Haven't you ever watched a basketball game, a football game? You don't always win by just mindlessly plowing down the court or the field. Sometimes you do have to go lateral or even backwards to get around the opposition.
Dust Bunny,
I'm not sure what you knowledge of sports is, but going slightly backward as Barry Sanders used to do mean't slightly shifting a few yards. She quit her job as a Governor! Nobody but a moron would run 30 yards back to try to advance 20. And going from a governor to the cocktail circuit definitely ain't lateral.
There is a reason, no matter how selfish, that your man Gov. Sanford won't resign. It's because that's a pretty powerful job. Anything but maybe President, Senate or a high Cabinet Official is a serious step-down. If you think that Newt Gingrich wouldn't trade his weekly talks on This Week to be a Governor, except for strictly financial reasons,your fooling yourself.
Haven't you ever watched a basketball game, a football game? You don't always win by just mindlessly plowing down the court or the field. Sometimes you do have to go lateral or even backwards to get around the opposition..
Not to get picky, but that wouldn't be described as "advancing" then, would it?
The woman is as dumb as a stump.
DBQ - slight change in topic, but if you were a Saints fan, and had watched the past couple of seasons with Reggie Bush heading for the sidelines over and over, hoping to make that cut that just doesn't happen in the NFL, you wouldn't offer up lateral motion as a possible means of advancing the ball. Just head up the middle, dammit, Reggie!
Beth -
"False dilemma. People often do both. Lots of people work full-time and go to school in the evenings."
You're the one setting up the false dilemma by claiming that it could be accomplished equally by going to night school even though you know that's not the case.
To completely analagize the situation, then the degree that you're seeking has open enrollment only in mid-semester. If you miss this enrollment period, you must wait at least 4 years to enroll again. Also, that program is only offering during working hours, so in order to complete it you would have to put aside your normal duties.
Now this program is vital to not only your future, but that of your entire family. In the meantime, more and more parents are lining up at the principal's office every day falsely claiming that you are beating their child in class, are showing favoritism to other students, and you're an incompetent teacher. Not only that, they're writing letters to the editor of your local paper saying not only that you're incompetent, but that you're also a terrible parent, a liar, and an all-around horrible person. You're completely innocent of all of these things, but now all of your free time and money are spent fighting these ridiculous accusations and you're bankrupting your family to hold on to your job while your family is subjected to abuse every time one of them walks out the front door.
Still willing to stick it out or do you make the decision that you'd rather apply to the program?
Beth said..."Palin didn't quit to run for office, not according to any declaration she's made."
The "key" phrase being: "not according to any declaration she's made."
She quit so she could make a ton of dough, and if anybody asks, she'll run for office again.
For people here to act as if this is some kind of unselfish act on the part of Princess Sarah, strictly designed to "help" out her fellow Alaskans is just the standard fare one can expect from a pack of wing nuts.
"Quitters never win, and winners never quit."
Beth -
"Just head up the middle, dammit, Reggie"
Except that the defense has stacked 8 men in the box, and your best bet is to beat the defensive backs on the corners because they've stacked up the big bodies in a goal line defense.
Still want to run it up the middle even with a mediocre offensive line, or do you play to your strengths knowing that going up the middle is pure suicide, and that going to the corners might not work, but if it does it's probably going to be a touchdown?
"It seems that they're all left-wing trolls."
Beth is, in my estimation, among the more reasonable liberals here, and among the more reasonable commenters.
She has a particular point of view that makes her see the world from a certain direction. But, bias isn't unreasonable. It's good to hear different perspectives, and hear them when their making commentary not filled with derision, or insults, or flooding a thread with predictable partisanship.
Trolls come from the left and the right on this blog, and Palin threads tend to bring out all the varieties.
There's a need for more Beths in this salon. Accusing every liberal as being a troll drives away the reasonable liberals and fills this spot with the unreasonable right-wing trolls--who bother me even as I tend to agree with their points.
garage -
"Not to get picky, but that wouldn't be described as "advancing" then, would it?"
Some of the most spectacular returns in NFL history have involved the player running either completely laterally across the length of the field or even backwards before ultimately scoring a touchdown.
Maybe watching a few highlights would clue you in.
Walter Payton would have either made his own hole, or jumped over the D line.
"Nobody but a moron would run 30 yards back to try to advance 20."
Not exactly 30 yards back, but a shotgun formation is all about putting the quarterback quite a bit behind the yard of scrimmage in order for better protection and awareness in a passing situation.
Alex said...
He can quit after 1 year of being a mostly absent Senator to run for President...
Ummmm...what??
Alex, you are kidding right?
Obama was a sitting Senator until he was elected President. He did not quit. Yes, he was 'absent' but so is EVERY politician who runs for President. See McCain's absence for reference.
IF Palin did not quit in such an odd way TWO years before a [potential] run for the White House and instead stayed a Governor all the way up to 2012 there would be no argument about her decisions because there would be no need to have an argument. Or even if she stayed to the end of her first term that would be fine too. Instead she abruptly resigned for reasons that are still not 100% clear, which [no matter who you are] is not a sign of a strong politician.
False dilemma. People often do both. Lots of people work full-time and go to school in the evenings. I am not rejecting your point, but this is a bad example for it.
No. My analogy was that the teacher/employee was using time that should be devoted to their job duties to further their own goals. Not talking about studying at night or on your own time. That is completely different.
It is basically stealing. Stealing the time of the students, or in the case of politicians their constituents. Stealing money when you purposely shirk your job duties or are unable to fulfill the duties and still collect the money. When you know that you are not going to be able to do your job as Senator, Governor or Teacher because you are planning your own advancement and STILL collect the money, you are no better than a thief or embezzler.
Obama did this. McCain did this. Many Politicians do this. At least Palin has the integrity to not do steal from the people of Alaska. I would hope that YOU would have the same integrity.
Big Mike wrote
"I wonder whether I can trademark "Hillbillies for Sarah 2012" and makes some serious retirement money."
Just be sure to pay me my royalties. I know how you hillbillies like to sell your shit quality bootleg 8-track tapes at your dusty flea markets.
Still want to run it up the middle even with a mediocre offensive line...
That's why there's also a passing game.
Enough with the baroque analogies! So much drama.
@Beth, as to whether Palin is running for something, I honestly don't know. Right now I wouldn't vote for her for President, but November 2012 is a long way off. By then she may in fact be a solid candidate. From where I sit, if she takes on Lisa Murkowski next year she'll get hammered, but I don't live in Alaska and am relying on second-hand information about Murkowski's approval ratings.
As to my degree of research on Barack Obama 2006 - 2008, you've sort of got me there. Sort of. I'm relying on information published in the MSM during the 2008 campaign. I know that the MSM isn't always accurate, but based on my observations I'm inclined to believe that they have not been particularly hard on Barak Obama. 8-) Frankly his record in the 109th and 110th Congresses doesn't suggest a particularly active legislator. Other sources, e.g., Yglesias, have come to a diffent conclusion, but I see a lot of "co sponsored" in Obama's record -- not much "sponsored."
PS -- Alex is wrong. You are not a POS. But you knew that already. Unfortunately Sarah Palin seems to arouse serious negative feelings on the part of numerous left-of-center women. I don't understand the vehemence at all, and to the extent that you are responding to purely visceral feelings I urge you to take a second look at the lady.
Thanks, Paddy-O.
Oooh, L.E., that's cold.
DBQ, I don't think people should have to quit their jobs to run for office, if that's your main point. We'd have to choose among only those who could financially afford to do that, and that strikes me as a bad idea. I'm sticking to my argument that people can do more than one thing, and do so with integrity. Not all do, but it's the model that's worked for a long while now. (I must be a closet conservative, appealing to tradition!)
"Just make sure you make the appropriate corrections for geography and remove all monies sent to individuals, organizations or local governments"
Take out military spending, too--presumably the fedgov gets something in exchange for that (i.e. an actual functional useful military base.) And it's not Alaska's fault that it's on the Northwestern frontier, and thus a more suitable location for a DEW installation than West Virginia would be. (Not that Robert Byrd never tried for that, I'll bet...)
Jim - metaphors and analogies aside, Reggie Bush has to learn not to run side to side, and God help us, backwards, if the Saints are to have a good offense this year. Yes, when it works, it's golden. But he does it damn near every possession that he has the ball.
Big Mike: "But you knew that already." Yes, but thanks anyway. Always nice to hear. That particular source is not one I feel any need to respond to.
My not voting for Palin isn't personal; she doesn't hold many positions that I would support politically. I'm not committed to voting for Obama in 2012; that could be a year I go third-party.
Matt -
"So, again, I am not criticizing the states for taking Federal dollars."
You just made my argument for me. Military salaries are beyond the control of the state government, blaming Palin for them is dishonest. You know it, so even including those numbers show that you're not even attempting to have an honest discussion here.
As for transportation procurement, see my previous posts about infrastructure and geography. You just made my point for me, so thank you for that.
Your per capita figures are distorted by the geography of the state, and you know it. It's an intentional deception to claim that Alaska is getting disproportionately more federal funding per capita when you also fail to note that the relative size of the state of Alaska compared to the entirety of the lower 48 states. Does Alaska get more infrastructure funding per square mile of territory than other states? That would be a more honest comparison to make if you're going to compare infrastructure dollars from one state to the next.
For example, I would expect that they get a whole lot more than Rhode Island in absolute dollars (I don't know if they do or not, but I'm guessing they do), but when you compare the size of the states it's obvious what a blatant distortion that is. Show me that an honest comparison, because you haven't even come close to that yet.
Other commenters have pointed out that the federal government owns the majority of the state of Alaska. How many of those federal dollars that you cite are going to maintain or build that property and/or access to it? Again, tease out the federal money that the federal government is paying for its own presence there and then we can talk about honest numbers. But you haven't done that yet, so you're not being at all honest.
How many of those federal dollars go to Alaska because of its proximity to Russia? Our country depends on the missile and early-warning systems that are based there, so the military has an outsize presence in the state compared the overall population. What percentage of those federal dollars you cite are dedicated solely to the support and maintenance of a system upon which the entire country depends?
Matt, you haven't even done the basic work requires to present an honest number about federal expenditures in Alaska. Maybe you're interested, or maybe you're trying to score points by throwing out bogus numbers, who knows? But what I do know is that your smoke and mirrors haven't made the case that you claim it has made, and if you're actually interested in making the case you've got a whole lot of work ahead to make it.
I don't think people should have to quit their jobs to run for office, if that's your main point.
I do think they should quit. You can't be a part time Senator or a part time spouse and do it effectively for very long.
We'd have to choose among only those who could financially afford to do that, and that strikes me as a bad idea.
This is a good point. However, we already have only the most wealthy or those with the biggest campaign chests running now. This leads to corruption and problems such as those of Obama and his 'internet' untraceable donations or Hillary with her Chinese connections. I'm not saying it is just Democrats either. Republicans and all politicians are subject to the temptations.
I still maintain that it shows integrity to resign when it is apparent that you are unable to do your job for whatever reason. If you are suddenly disabled or if you are planning to go elsewhere, the right thing to do is to resign and let someone who CAN do the job take over.
Beth -
"Reggie Bush has to learn not to run side to side, and God help us, backwards, if the Saints are to have a good offense this year."
To go completely OT with you, if the Saints had an offensive line worth a damn he probably would. They need to do what the Cowboys did with Emmitt Smith and get him the biggest, beefiest offensive line known to man. Then he could pick and choose whether he runs inside or outside. There's a reason why Emmitt's the all-time leading rusher, and it's not just because he was a tough-as-nails running back. He had the offensive line and an incredible passing game that always kept the defense guessing on its heels.
Bush is an incredible talent, but without the right supporting cast he's just another sitting duck.
@L.E., back when the Republican party was being founded the Southern Democrats regarded the free men of the North as "a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small-fisted farmers, ... hardly fit for association with a Southern gentleman’s body servant.”
In response the Republicans set up parades in 1860 with workers carrying placards that said "Mudsills and Greasy Mechanics for A. Lincoln."
I wonder whether "Hillbillies for Sarah Palin" will work as well?
But, no, I'm not planning to share a dime.
Matt -
"IF Palin did not quit in such an odd way TWO years before a [potential] run for the White House and instead stayed a Governor all the way up to 2012 there would be no argument about her decisions because there would be no need to have an argument."
Given the abusive ethics filings, that's not an honest argument to make. She got an ethics complaint filed on her for announcing her decision to resign for heaven's sake!
If she hadn't resigned, there's no way she could have done anything other than hole herself up in the Governor's office until at least the end of her term - no public appearances (even within her own state, she got ethics complaints about that too), no nothing. That was the goal of the abuse, and it would have succeeded had she allowed it to continue.
You know these things, and yet you keep making these dishonest arguments over and over. I'm willing to debate her decision, but you have to be willing to be honest first.
@Beth, if fiscal conservatives decide to split from the sort of social conservatives who con't care about huge deficts as long as their politicians make the right noises about abortion and homosexuality, would you be interested in joining?
Jim said - How many of those federal dollars go to Alaska because of its proximity to Russia?
Why did you have to say that?
Beth -
"We'd have to choose among only those who could financially afford to do that, and that strikes me as a bad idea. "
Or we could just admit that no one really holds the idea of completing a term sacred except when it can be used as a bludgeon against a potential opponent. As has been pointed out over and over, pretty much every politician who has ever run for a second office has either completely abandoned their current position or in some way "violated their oath" to their current constituents.
I think the point that DBQ and I are both trying to make is that it's not honest to condemn Palin while supporting the decisions of other politician to abandon their duties for the balance of their terms. Either you hold everyone to the same standard of exclusive devotion to the office they currently hold, or you admit that there's nothing sacred about completing that term.
You really can't have it both ways. Either both are wrong, or both are right. There's not any middle ground to occupy.
It seem whenever a Palin thread is created the troll ratio is always highest. That's fascinating.
john -
"Why did you have to say that?"
Because it was Tina Fey who made the crack about seeing Russia from her house, not Sarah Palin.
I know some of our commenters get themselves so worked up that they attribute it to her, but if you look at the unedited answer that Palin gave to Gibson's question it was actually right on the money. That some of the commenters here dishonestly neglect to mention that ABC intentionally edited out her full answer is not my problem. I refuse to be bound by their dishonesty.
Big Mike, I'm certainly more comfortable with fiscal conservatives. I'm not unaware, though, that it can be a cover for social conservatism or others -isms. I don't object to my taxes being used for more than defense, for example, but I do object to waste, fraud and putting money down holes that never return an investment. I support charter schools, for example; they are still funded by state and local dollars, but they have to succeed, and they allow school choice in a way that I prefer to offering vouchers that move tax dollars to unaccountable private schools. I want all city contracts made public during the consideration process, with proper deletion of companies' tax and proprietary info. I want the guy who brought the post-Katrina Superdome repair and renovation in under budget and ahead of schedule to run for mayor of New Orleans in 2010. I've voted for GOP candidates in state and local elections, based on the criteria that they're fiscal, not social, conservatives.
But I'm registered Independent, and plan to stay that way, and I don't join party-based groups, like the Stonewall Democrats, for example. I am for the most part liberal, and prefer to support candidates who I think will be honest and pragmatic, to the degree that any of them are. I don't trust politicians of any stripe, for the most part.
Jim, I believe there is middle ground, that things aren't black and white, that the details matter. Since we disagree on that, we've probably hit a wall in our discussion.
Jim
I'm not sure why you twist my words to make your arguments. It is very odd and a bit annoying.
I was responding to Alex who seemed to think that Palin resigning early was the same as Obama being absent while running for the White House. I made the obvious point that they were not the same.
Your argument is [I guess] that poor Palin could not do anything in her present position because of all the ethics complaints. Yes, there is no doubt that it was hard for her to get things done. And a lot of these ethics complaints are frivolous.
But, tell me, do you really think a potential White House run starts with a resignation a year early with an excuse that the pressure and the ethics complaints are too much to handle? I mean, come on. The phrase, "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" comes to mind. What would poor Palin do if she became President and there were ethics complaints? Hide in the basement and blame the media for being so mean to her?
Goodness, dude.
Wikipedia defines "internet troll" accurately: "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community ... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Alex, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Jim said: "Once you have decided not to seek re-election to an office, you are - by definition - a lame duck.
Palin was a "lame duck" effective July 3rd when she announced her resignation."
Palin gave as one of her reasons for resigning that she didn't want to be a lame duck governor.
She's complaining about a supposed existential state of "lame-duckness" that she created for herself at the time she resigned in complaint of it.
Bush is an incredible talent, but without the right supporting cast he's just another sitting duck.
As is Drew Brees, but so far the O-Line has defended him fairly well. It helps that he can throw a ball like nobody's business.
Matt -
Except that you're creating a false dichotomy.
Obama essentially said the same thing: that he wasn't going to be the senator from Illinois any more the second he took up his campaign for president. The only difference is that he kept taking a paycheck for not doing his job. It doesn't mean that he kept doing it. In that sense, outright quitting is a more honorable path than basically defrauding the people who elected you. That's a pretty simple distinction, why is it that you are having such a difficult time understanding it?
Looking at the unique ethics laws in the state of Alaska and extrapolating them to the presidency is, again, a false comparison. The president cannot be personally bankrupted by ethics complaints. In fact, the only "ethics complaints" that exist against a president are the impeachment powers of the House. Your whole argument falls apart as a result.
As far as quitting "a year early" see my previous posts about the time it takes to put together a national campaign. It's only a year early if you completely lack any understanding of the process.
You're trying to compare apples to oranges and getting "annoyed" that I refuse to accept the false premises you set forth. I'm sorry about that, but if you tried comparing apples to apples instead you'd be less annoyed.
@Beth, I've chosen a different route -- I'm a registered Republican and formerly active enough within the party to have volunteered for RNC training in electioneering at the local level.
I think that unions have a role to play in American society, but that everybody -- myself included -- has to be careful not to price our labor beyond where it makes sense to pay us. That said, I'm appalled at the behavior of the NEA and AFT. Can inner city children be responsibly educated without breaking those two unions? I'd rather see both unions broken than see another inner city child graduate high school with only 8th grade math and reading skills. But I don't think it has to be an either-or unless the union rank and file makes it that way.
So is there middle ground where you and I can meet?
Robert Cook -
"She's complaining about a supposed existential state of "lame-duckness" that she created for herself at the time she resigned in complaint of it."
Wrong. You're trying to get me to fall into your fallacious logic, and I'm not going to do it.
Once you've made the decision not to run again, you are a lame duck whether you announce the decision publicly or not. The second she and her family made the decision that she would not run again, she was a lame duck. That instant. Since I don't have any way of knowing what day that actually was, I used her July 3rd announcement as the date; however, she had been a lame duck even prior to that moment.
I'm not going to go around and around with you because you're either not arguing in good faith or you're so hopelessly confused about the term "lame duck" as to make any further discussion of the term meaningless. Given your previous posts on the topic I'd tend to believe a lack of good faith on your part, but I'm not willing to rule out ignorance. Either way, there's no point.
Have a good day.
Dust Bunny Queen said: (quoting Beth)"'I'm trying to figure out how that "disdain" is more noble than the "hillbilly c*nt" attitude you assume on the part of the Robert Cooks of the world. Is it a more patriotic disdain? A more hard-workin', heartland kind of disdain?'
Is it difficult to understand that I, and many many others throughout the country, resent being labeled and denigrated by the likes of Cook and Lee as hillbilies and racists and all sorts of other names because we disagree politically?"
I have never called Palin's followers hillbillies or cunts or racists.
Beth -
"As is Drew Brees, but so far the O-Line has defended him fairly well. "
Pass blocking is actually easier than run blocking as it's a pretty straightforward assigment as a rule with little of the pulling action and trap blocking and other skills required of a good running game. Maybe they'll mature into a better line, but they've still got some work to do.
Jim said: "...you're so hopelessly confused....
Well, someone is hopelessly confused, but I don't think it's me.
Jim,
You forgot the cost of the Coast Guard, as Alaska apparently has half of our nations coast line (6,600 miles out of a total of 12,479 - but only including ocean costs, and ignoring the Great Lakes). If you look at all the little islands though, esp. out in the Aleutians, their coastline jumps up to approx. 44,000 miles.
Once you've made the decision not to run again, you are a lame duck whether you announce the decision publicly or not.
Being a lame duck means that your opponents -- in either party -- don't have to concede much to you because they don't have the incentive of having to deal with you for another term. For them not to have that incentive, they must be aware that you either cannot or will not seek another term. It is a status that completely depends on the perception of OTHERS. If the decision not to run is one kept solely in the mind of the office holder, there's no lame duck effect.
Beth -
"If the decision not to run is one kept solely in the mind of the office holder, there's no lame duck effect."
Except that in her resignation speech, Palin specifically pointed to the decisions of lame duck office holders to spend their final year(s) taking expensive travel junkets, etc. She was talking about the actions typically engaged in by the lame duck office holder, not how legislators would react to them. In her speech, she said that she didn't want to be like those people, and so she would forego putting herself in that position.
You are correct in that there are corollary consequences once you announce it, but she was never going to be able to hold off announcing it for more than a few months anyway. The 2010 elections are fast approaching and her lieutenant governor and political ally had a right to know if he should be gearing up to be #1 or #2. So the argument basically boils down to whether she made the announcement to become a lame duck in July or October, and I don't see that big of a difference between the two, do you?
Personally, I think it was an act of political loyalty to give Parnell a chance to establish his own record separate and distinct from hers, so that Alaskans could judge him on his own merits in the upcoming election rather than being colored by their personal prejudices either for or against Palin. It was also smart personal politics: she is more likely to have an ally in the governor's office who now owes her a favor in any upcoming presidential bid as a result of her decision to step down early.
but only including ocean costs, and ignoring the Great Lakes
How can you ignore the Great Lakes? Michigan's coastline is second only to Alaska's. The Coast Guard does ply fresh waters.
Jim, the consequences are not "corollary" - they are the direct consequences. A lame duck is an elected official who cannot be effective because others in the political process view them as insignificant because they're on the way out of office. That's not a side effect, it's THE effect. And it only occurs if the decision not to run again is known outside the mind of the reluctant office holder.
Flying on junkets isn't what being a lame duck means. And it's simple - as Nancy Reagan would advise, just say no to the junkets. There's no reason a governor who plans to step down after one term can't work every day until that time, with diligence.
This is exactly what I mean when I say Palin is full of drama, self-generated drama. I am mystified by how her fans follow the narrative.
The idea that a "lame duck" is an internal status, and that it began the minute Palin decided in her own mind not to run again just makes my view of her as an unserious person much more persuasive. "I don't think I'll run again. Huh. So why bother with the rest of this term anyway? I'm blowing this pop stand!" And then she blames it on being a "lame duck"!
I have never called Palin's followers hillbillies or cunts or racists.
Then I apologize. I must have you confused with some other poster.
Beth, they have stared into the Palin Star for too long and are dazzled.
Palin supporters need to be more cynical. That's my opinion. Cruelly neutral. There's a catchphrase for them.
Jim
Okay, so you want to set a new paradigm. Resigning early in an abrupt and interesting way is honorable and makes one eligible for the Presidency. But staying in office as a Senator and voting on a few key votes is not honorable.
I get it.
Nevermind the fact that a Governor's resignation is a whole lot more serious than a Senator being absent for some votes. And nevermind that when McCain was absent for numerous votes last year it was not an issue with anyone except far far left loons.
Tell me. Do you think Palin's move makes her more qualified and a better politician than Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney who both managed to stay in office all the way to the end of their terms?
I'm guessing your answer is yes.
Jim, it's okay to be partisan. But when making an objective argument try to make one that is at least plausible and theoretically sound. You are ONLY making the argument you make because you love Sarah Palin beyond words. If a Democratic governor did the same thing you would be making the opposite argument.
If you honestly think that Palin's resignation is politically smart then I want you to run the Republican National Committe because with you in charge the Democrats will take even more seats in 2010 and 2012 as well as retain the White House for years to come.
Beth -
"Flying on junkets isn't what being a lame duck means."
It may not be what it means, but it is what lame ducks do.
Knowing you're not going to be held accountable by voters leads to all sorts of irresponsible actions by office holders. They can get away with doing anything they want, and they typically act like it. The foreign junkets was an example that she used in her speech, but it was far from the only example she could have used. Pretty much anyone who has ever been represented by a lame duck at any level of government knows just how little interest they wind up having in giving their entire energy to the office.
I would argue that a large portion of Bush's problem, for example, were created by his lame duck status following the 2004 elections. He and his people never pushed back as hard against the myriad lies and slanders that were hurled at him because I just don't think he much cared any more what they had to say because he wasn't going to have worry about public opinion any more.
I'm not going to deny the lame duck vs. legislators dynamic because it's very important as well, but to say that it's the ONLY issue is to willfilly ignore the rest of the picture.
Matt -
What I said was that they are in essence the same thing: neither one is doing the job. But only one is collecting a paycheck for not doing the job.
If you bothered to read my other posts on this topic, you'd see that I'm not horrified by either Obama or McCain continuing to collect their paychecks because I recognize that this is how every single politician who seeks higher office does it. But I'm also not sanctimoniously condemning someone for deciding that it wasn't right to collect a paycheck for a job that they weren't doing.
That's something that you're doing. So if you're going to condemn Palin while exonerating every other politician, then you are the one who needs to explain why it's so obviously a superior route to collect a paycheck for a job you're not doing. You haven't even attempted to do that. You just keep doubling down on the same: Palin didn't do that, so it must be wrong.
In order for you to believe that, you must therefore believe that a part-time, or no time, office holder is necessarily superior to that person being replaced by someone who is willing to dedicate themselves to that job 100% of the time. You have failed to make any argument which could even conceivably support that position. Nor do I believe that such an argument exists except with regard to purely partisan interests. For example, if McCain had resigned then a Democratic governor would have been able to name a Democratic senator as his replacement. Therefore, it was in the interest of Republicans in general that he remain in office. On the other hand, I fail to see any convincing argument that Obama (with a Democratic governor) had any rationale to stay in his - even a partisan one.
The onus is on you to prove that your position is the superior one. You haven't, and I don't believe that you can. But, unlike you, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
As far as her position against Huckabee and Romney or any other politician for that matter, without getting into every detail I can say without reservation that just because you complete your term doesn't make you a better candidate for the next office. What you accomplished during your time in office and what policies you propose for the next office are far more important than just seniority.
By your argument, you should have voted for Senator Byrd for president in the last election. After all, he's got more time in office than anyone else; therefore, he is obviously far more qualified to do the job than some half-term senator from Illinois.
You may not like that your illogic is being challenged, but once again you presuppose me to have beliefs that I don't hold. All I'm doing is pointing out that every single attack you have made is so full of logic holes that I have my choice of which ones to drive a Mack truck through.
Your positions are purely partisan ones because they clearly aren't logical ones, so you project your partisan beliefs on to me.
You're welcome to keep trying, but you're going to have to do a whole lot better than you've done so far.
It may not be what it means, but it is what lame ducks do.
I would love to hear you source any independent authority whether blogger, news org or anyone else, whoever equated "lame ducks" with junkets, before Sarah made her comments. I don't know why it's so hard to see the lack of truth to that statement. Sure some lame ducks don't spend their time legislating, but some healthy approval politicians who aren't don't either. Their is just no cause and effect here for anyone who isn't trying to defer to the wit and wisdom of Sarah Palin.
Jim, the description you give of lame ducks is completely different from mine. I'm serious. There are plenty of lame ducks running around Wisconsin after every election cycle, before the 'new' people have been sworn in, and I've seen zero reporting on their junkets. Same goes for US House of Representative-types.
I would bet that when Rep. Steve Kagen loses in November 2010 to a Republican (not John Gard, thank GOD, what a horrid politician he is), he (Kagen) will not promptly go on a trip to Germany to visit Wisconsin's sister Beer city -- or anywhere else.
Even on the way-too-rare occasion when someone says they're not running for re-election, I don't recall junkets happening. Maybe it's because I don't listen for that, but I'm pretty attuned to hypocrisy/idiocy in politicians because it's so darn fun to make fun of them.
Invisible -
If you believe that the vast majority of lame ducks do their jobs with the same vigor that someone who knows they will be held accountable by voters in the next election, then you are a fool.
Let's put it this way, if there were no such thing as performance reviews, do you think that the vast majority of employees would continue to work hard every minute of every day? Why should they? They're going to get the same raises or be subject to the same layoffs as the next guy no matter what. So what's the point? It's the essence of why government is so inefficient compared to private industry. Take away the incentives (and disincentives) and you also remove performance.
And so it is with political lame ducks. Whether conscioiusly or unconsciously, they will not have the same incentives as someone who is still accountable. It's human nature.
I shouldn't be surprised that a Leftist would make this sort of argument, but it's the reason that communism and socialism are always doomed to failure. You might want to do a little reading of history and economics if any of this confuses you. Let me know if you need help with the big words.
@Jim, you not only make the same points I'd like to make, but you make them quicker and more eloquently.
(I'm jealous.)
But your ability to suffer fools clearly has its limits and right now you're getting a little testy. Just don't let the basturds drive you into losing your temper, okay?
I hadn't bothered viewing Governor Palin's speech on her last day in office until just moments ago, and I only had time to view the first 10 minute portion linked here.
Oh. My. God.
The woman is simply babbling, pandering as fast and as incoherently as she can.
Anyone who sees in this woman someone they want in high office is simply pulling the wool over their own eyes, relaxing in the safety of their own delusions, as the Subgeniuses have promised us for many years.
Palin as a media figure demands to have a Margaret Keane portrait made of her!
MM -
" would bet that when Rep. Steve Kagen loses in November 2010 to a Republican (not John Gard, thank GOD, what a horrid politician he is), he (Kagen) will not promptly go on a trip to Germany to visit Wisconsin's sister Beer city -- or anywhere else."
We're talking about two different animals. You're talking about someone who has already lost their job versus someone who knows that they can't.
To be an equivalent situation, you'd have to examine Kagen's actions prior to the election in which he chose not to participate. If he decided today that he would not stand in 2010, do you honestly believe he wouldn't exploit the perks of his office to the fullest extent possible or that he would be fighting as hard for issues important to his constituents up until his very last day in office? I know you're both realistic and cynical enough to know that there's no way that he would.
There we're talking about a period of months or years, not a period only long enough to clear your personal items out of the office and move back home with precious little time for anything else - which is what Kagen would have if he lost the election.
Let's talk apples to apples, and we can discuss it further.
A poem from Sarah
"And getting up here, I say
it is the best road trip in America, soaring through
nature's finest show.
Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun.
And then the extremes.
In the winter time, it's the frozen road
that is competing with the view of ice fogged frigid beauty
the cold though
doesn't it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?
And then in the summertime, such extreme - summertime -
about a hundred and fifty degrees hotter than just some months ago,
than just some months from now,
with fireweed blooming along the frost heaves
and merciless rivers that are rushing and carving and reminding us that here,
Mother Nature wins."
Big Mike -
Thanks for the call out on that. You're right, my patience is running a bit thin at the moment with the rampant illogic and general foolishness. I should take a break and swim a few laps.
Cheers!
Well, as I wrote, people in office who decide to opt out -- for non-Larry Craig type reasons, or non-health reasons -- of re-election are unfortunately too rare.
It doesn't seem to be something on my radar, and I'm not sure why.
Jim
It is never politically smart or 'superior' to resign early the way Palin has. Never.
I see the argument you are making. Essentially, you feel, it is more honorable to get out early [in a first term, no less!] than to stay a seated Senator [or Governor] who is absent most of the time while running for the White House.
But what you don't seem to understand is this is July 2009 not November 2010, which would be the time most politicians start a Presidential run; Not now with a year-and-a-half in her term. In other words, she didn't need to resign now if she were running for the White House - so your comparison with Obama is not a sound one.
What you also seem to either not understand or willfully ignore is the perception that such a resignation creates. Let's say you are 100% correct and a resignation like this is the superior thing to do. Very few people in or outside of politics share this belief. This is not a good plan for a politician if they are to do a White House run [which I don’t think she will do anyway].
True, "just because you complete your term doesn't make you a better candidate..." But it does make you a more sound and stable one. Do you realize the kind of shake-up a resignation does to a state? The money involved, the staff changes, the special sessions, the focus suddenly being taken off getting things done shifted to getting a new administration? It's serious business. In that regard a resignation is an insult to the people of a state as well as an insult to the political process.
No serious politician would do this. But, then, few think Palin is serious so no real loss.
@Jim, all that and you have ready access to a workout pool?
Now I really am jealous you SOB.
If you believe that the vast majority of lame ducks do their jobs with the same vigor that someone who knows they will be held accountable by voters in the next election, then you are a fool.
Jim,
That's a reasonable statement that I can live by, so I'm going to answer this substantively
I understand and agree with your general sentiment, but Sarah isn't articulating this. She's using "lame duck" like its some manifest destiny that she will HAVE go on junkets and get nothing done. I hate to give the classical parental, "Leader/Follower" speech but it fits here. Why does she have to follow the bad example set by other politicians?
If she considers herself a leader then she should be leading. Just throwing up your hands and finding another group to lead just isn't a noble choice. And choice is the operative word here. She had a choice to stick it out and try to make it work. She had a choice to show everyone that she's as good as many of you think by taking what might be a bad situation and making something great of it. But she's chosen to quit and start in another situation. It may be practical but it’s not admirable.
Too be honest, I think that people have gone a bit overboard with the ethics complaints, but from all reports she's not helped her situation politically with either Republicans or Democrats. The problem is when people become so divorced from the reality of a situation that they believe that it's everyone else's fault. As much as I'm an Obama guy, he better not throw his hands up and just say that Congress is ungovernable (which it probably is). He better fight till his knuckles bleed to make things work, because that's his damn job. I'm not comparing the two, but I am comparing the situations. Politics is a tough field, especially when you’re an executive. There is a whole lot of responsibility. And Sarah has given up her responsibility to figure it out. Go back to Alaska, mend fences, set up a legal department that beats back ethics complaints easily, maybe reform the laws so that no other Alaska governor has to go through what she is, but she didn't stick around to see if there were any options like that. She just quit.
Well, my prediction of 200 by 4:30 didn't pan out. If only Alex and Jeremy had shown up at the same time!
For all those who don't think that Palin should have resigned, how do you expect her to have paid the legal fees to defend herself from the continuous stream of ethics complaints being filed against her?
She was being attacked with an death of a thousand cuts, and the only thing that she could see coming from it was bankruptcy for Todd and her.
And, yes, I think it was orchestrated by the left. I won't go as far as suggesting that it came out of the White House. I have seen no indication of it. Rather, I would think that all it would take is a little ingenuity and a some people who don't want her on the national scene. In other words, the Kool-Aid drinking leftists that put Obama in the White House are more than sufficient for this all on their own. Think ACORN types with less organization, but no less shame.
And this isn't the first time that this sort of thing has been tried. The Democrats in Congress filed 84 ethics complaints against Newt Gingrich, 83 of which were dismissed, and the last one he paid a fine without agreeing that he had done anything wrong. Of course, this was considered payback, since he had let bringing down Jim Wright through ethics complaints (that appear to have been much better founded than those filed against either Gingrich or Palin).
Matt: "What you also seem to either not understand or willfully ignore is the perception that such a resignation creates. Let's say you are 100% correct and a resignation like this is the superior thing to do. Very few people in or outside of politics share this belief."
So?
This is what I really do not "get" at all.
Yes, of *course* there are negatives to this decision. No one is ignoring those negatives. No one is ignoring the fact that the perception of quitter is a negative. What you (and others) seem to ignore is that any decision (even between two bad choices or between two good choices) has a pro and con side to weigh and that the presence of negatives on the con side do not necessarily outweigh the pros.
The *presence* of that negative perception does not determine which decision is, in fact, the best one for her to make. The fact that some mysterious "most" people have some sort of consensus that resigning was a bad move does not, in any way, make NOT resigning a GOOD move.
Most adult people understand that life choices are almost never between a good choice and a bad choice but are almost always between which bad choice is less bad or which good choice is better than another good choice. Thus we made decisions and choices that *are* bad... but hopefully less bad than the alternative, and we make decisions and choices that end up choosing *against* good choices... but hopefully in favor of a slightly better choice.
Believing that it is quite possible (having a necessarily faulty understanding of the details) that this decision will work out in her favor AS OPPOSED TO THE ALTERNATIVE decisions available to her... is not ignoring the negatives or refusing to acknowledge the IDEAL.
Matt -
I articulated previously the amount of time that it takes to run for president. You claim that most politicians would begin their run for the presidency in November 2010 when that is patently, and demonstrably false.
Obama's campaign organization is still up and running, and everything he does is calibrated toward his re-election. Romney is out there every day making appearances, doing fundraisers, and issuing statements; and he already has a national-level organization from his 2008 run. Likewise Huckabee, and Hillary Clinton should Obama prove weak enough by that time to entertain a primary challenge.
Saying that Palin should have waited until the end of 2010 is to knee-cap her before she ever began a potential run at the White House. No one else is holding the other potential candidates back to level the playing field, and they're already warming up.
As far as perceptions are concerned, you're speaking of your perceptions and those who would most likely oppose her if she were to run anyway. Even after she announced her resignation, she still has a 70% percent approval rating from Republicans - far outstripping Romney's 59%. So as far as perceptions go, she's still far ahead of the field.
As far as your claims of her being more stable, etc., I could equally argue that a junior senator from Illinois wasn't exactly the model of stability by choosing to run for president so early in his first term. Yet he managed to win. So much for perceptions.
And yes, I realize the potential cost of a shake-up. However, in this case, they will be relatively minor as it's highly unlikely that Parnell would choose to do the kind of wholesale governmental makeover that you are implying. She and Parnell are allies, and it is very likely that he will keep most of the same people in place. So that major "shake-up" will come from him moving his office figuratively down the street.
As far as your contention that no "serious" politician would do this, again, you're speaking from your personal point of view and you're not exactly neutral in this discussion are you?
I would argue the opposite: that a serious politician looks at the situation like a chessboard and must always be thinking several moves ahead of where the board currently is positioned and several moves ahead of his opponent.
Quite frankly, all of your arguments boil down to playing checkers while Palin is clearly playing chess. Your focus is on the short run impact rather than the possibility of even greater achievements in the long run. I will grant you that she has taken a calculated risk. But you are arguing that no calculation was involved, and that's clearly not the case. And as we know, without risk there is no reward.
It remains to be seen if she will reap the reward, but for you to claim that she has put herself out of the game is clearly shortsighted in the extreme.
There should be a website that details ethics complaints against all Politicians. Who filed it, what are the specifics, what was the outcome.
That would be very interesting to see.
Jim - as usual, brilliant analysis. I don't expect our liberal friends to be giving unbiased analysis on anything Sarah Palin does. After all, they have a vested interest in slamming her every move.
Just to be fair. I think that at the moment Sarah Palin has a lot of negatives, mostly with an accurate perception of:
* she doesn't seem to understand policy issues in depth
* she doesn't know how to handle hostile media interviewers
But I give her the next 12 months to rectify those 2 major weaknesses. Her strengths(popularity in GOP, solid family, and good middle class background) are the kind of fundamentals that can't hurt in a general election. But if she doesn't rectify the weakness in a reasonable amount of time, I'll be the first to criticize her.
Invisible -
Like Matt, you are arguing from a purely shortsighted perspective in analyzing Palin's potential as a leader.
As another commenter once put it, the Left had Palin in a cage so long as she sat in the governor's chair, and they were constantly poking her with sticks. So long as she was governor, she had no real ability to make it stop.
You argue that a leader would have simply sat there and allowed himself to be repeatedly poked with sticks. That's a ludicrous position to take. As if this were simply a contest to see who has the most stamina? Or some kind of ridiculous reality show to see how much pain you can take before you cry 'uncle'?
No. A real leader looks at the situation and says "I'm in a cage where I cannot defend myself against unprovoked attacks. How best should I go about turning the tables on those who wield those sticks, so that I am on the offense rather than perpetually on the defense?" That is how a leader thinks. Your position is the one that a mindless follower would assume.
So Palin analyzed her situation and determined that she was best able to advocate those policies most important to her by getting out of the cage. It's a strategic decision that, in hindsight, is the obvious one.
Now I understand that as Obama guy, you don't like that the tiger is on the loose. You rather enjoyed poking sticks at her while she was powerless to stop you. But that doesn't make the tiger's decision to leave the cage a bad one from anyone's perspective but those who were holding the sticks when he escaped.
As far as Obama "throwing his hands up," he's already done that. He has handed over every policy on which he campaigned completely and utterly to Congress with absolutely no guidance from his administration as to what principles and bright lines that legislation should entail.
Stimulus needs to stimulate the economy right away. That's what Obama said. He said it needed to provide an "immediate jolt" to the economy. Instead he turned it over to Congress and got a bunch of pork in return. Now that it hasn't stimulated a single thing, he's reduced to claiming that it was never meant to stimulate in the first place. Now he's trying to rewrite history and claim it was never meant to do that in the first place despite videos all over the internet which show him to be a complete liar. This is your idea of leadership?
Let's go on to cap-and-trade. How's that moving through Congress? Oh yeah. It isn't. At all. And probably never will after the House fiasco which Obama never deigned to lay down bright lines or principles on either. So the end result was pissing off a whole lot of Democrats who had their arms twisted into voting for something which will likely never see the light of day again. And this is what you call leadership?
Let's move on to healthcare. The Democrats in Congress are literally screaming for guidance from administration. What do you want from this? Obama's answer? "I'll wait to see what they produce." Because of his lack of leadership on cap-and-trade, his signature healthcare reform is in trouble because House Democrats aren't willing to walk the plank twice in two months for an administration that hasn't shown any willingness to participate in the process itself. And you call this leadership?
The only places where Obama has been strong is in whining. FoxNews doesn't kiss my feet. Republicans aren't falling all over themselves to walk the plank for my agenda - despite him having an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate. Oh my friend was racially-profiled and the police are stupid. Oh yeah, and let's not leave out his strong position on apologizing for America at every turn and coddling tyrants and dictators. And this is what you call leadership?
Quite frankly, if my only choice is between this and whatever Palin has in store: I'm willing to roll the dice.
Big Mike -
If you're ever down Maryland way, feel free to stop by. We can have a "teaching moment" and share a beer while we sit by the pool. It's sure to be a lot more fun than the confab that Obama has planned for Crowley and Gates.
alex -
Palin definitely has some hurdles to overcome. No doubt about it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the Republican bench for 2012 is extremely strong. She may not wind up being the best pick from the available choices when the time rolls around. But I do think it's important that, when that time comes, that we make that choice based on fact not fiction.
Jim - I agree that the 2012 field will be the strongest since possibly 1980. It will be the first time in my political life that I will be genuinely excited.
Romney, Thune, Palin(?), Huckster and Paul will make it fun
Alex said..."Jim - I agree that the 2012 field will be the strongest since possibly 1980. It will be the first time in my political life that I will be genuinely excited."
The GOP rates Rush Limbaugh as their "leader," they've got three adulterers bunking at "C" Street, trying to hang onto their jobs, Princess Sarah just proving she is nothing more than a quitter when the going gets tough, and this twit thinks 2012 will be spectacular for the Republicans.
Duh.
Compare and contrast Bush in his first term with Obama in his first. Bush had a divided Congress for the first two years, yet he still managed to get No Child Left Behind, his tax cuts and prescription drugs for seniors passed, as well as leading the nation in the aftermath of 9/11.
He did it by being a leader. You can say what you want about whether or not his policies were a good idea, but he did what a leader is supposed to do: he set out his principles and the bright lines and then he and his administration went to work on members of Congress to get what they wanted out of that sausage grinder.
You might not like him, and you might not like his politics. But there's no denying that, in his first term at least, he never sat back and waited for Congress to decide what they were going to do. He told them what he expected, and he fought tooth and nail until he got it. (Which is precisely why so many on the opposite side of aisle despised him so much.)
[Going back to the "lame duck" discussion from earlier, it was his second term that did him in with popular opinion...largely due to all of those concrete and not-so-concrete things that being a lame duck entails: he stopped pushing back, he pushed unpopular policies that a president facing re-election wouldn't have pushed, and Congress no longer feared crossing him when it suited them.]
Jim - "It's sure to be a lot more fun than the confab that Obama has planned for Crowley and Gates."
Oh, God yes.
Who wouldn't want to spend time with another wing nut instead of visiting the White House and meeting the President of the United States?
Wing nuts...poolside...whining and bitching.
What a scene...
You argue that a leader would have simply sat there and allowed himself to be repeatedly poked with sticks.
Jim,
You have a potential candidate who can't take being poked with a proverbial stick, that's ludicrous. You don't think Lincoln was pocked with a stick when people called him a traitor as he tried to save the union, or Churchill when they called him a warmonger when he took his stance against Hitler or FDR when they called him a socialist. I guess it would have proved brilliant for any of them to quit for a "long term strategy" perspective so they wouldn't get poked with a stick.
Part of being a leader is getting poked with a stick. If leadership was easy, everybody would be doing it. What do you think happens if she runs for President? I mean nobody would make up a story about a President, say about him being mysteriously born in another country per se.
And this focus on long-term, obscures the fact that she had short-term obligations. If she does run for President, why not just not finish her term in 2010. She would still have had plenty of time to run for President. This is the equivalent of playing the lotto for the Presidency. I mean of course she might win, but it more a gamble than an actual strategy.
Jim - one big difference I feel is that Bush was not megalomaniac like Obama. Sure he was a politician who wanted to make sure he got re-elected, but I think it was more of a ego-thing about proving he could avoid his father's mistake. But Obama is simply scary. He has the demeanor of someone who doesn't really relish open debate, and would prefer to dictate. Heck, even Ed Schultz said today that "Obama is an arm twister". Scary shit.
Jim - please just ignore the trolls. They don't offer anything to the debate. They exist to feed negative energy into the process. I believe some of them may be paid ACORN astroturfers. I certainly don't care what any of them have to say about internal GOP politics, they can mind their own miserable business.
Invisible -
"You have a potential candidate who can't take being poked with a proverbial stick, that's ludicrous"
Comparing being called names to political opponents attempting to bankrupt you personally is like night and day. Palin has been called every name in the book, including several which are too vulgar to even be included in the book. I seem to recall more than one Democrat proudly wearing shirts that said "Palin is a C*nt." (with no asterisk) So you can leave off this whole "somebody called her a name so she's running away" meme. That's not in any way even close to being an honest line of argument, and you know it. You only damage your own credibility by pretending it is.
I've already covered this whole "she could start running at the end of 2010" meme more than once as well. It's not true. It's just an attempt at playing political games that has no bearing on reality whatsoever. If she had waited, she would never have stood a chance. While that might suit you personally, your claim that she could have waited until then just doesn't hold any water either.
Again with the short term obligations argument. I'm not going to rehash the same thing over and over again. You can keep using a previously debunked line of argument if you choose, but it doesn't make it any more true than when others tried it earlier in this thread.
If you have new ground to cover on the subject, I'm certainly willing to cover it. But going over the same ground over and over isn't moving the discussion forward.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा