Althouse: "Sarah Palin is not stupid."

July 4, 2009

"Sarah Palin is not stupid."

Skeptoid vs. ad hominem attacks.

130 comments:

rhhardin said...: Lots of people who are not stupid are not interested in economics or foreign relations.

But populism isn't a great substitute for interest.; 7/4/09, 8:51 AM
rhhardin said...: Somebody should agitate to bring back the original meaning of ad hominem argument.

It was an argument designed to appeal to the opponent's interests, not one designed to attack him.

An attack would be a contra hominem argument.; 7/4/09, 8:54 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: How insightful of him to notice that she's no crazier than Bill Maher, Mahmoud Achminejad or Timothy McVeigh. Liberals are so smart.

It would have more relevant to point out that she's surely no dumber or less-informed than Joe Biden.; 7/4/09, 8:59 AM
Kirby Olson said...: Lots of people who aren't stupid use ad hominem arguments. Entire schools of thought are devoted to bringing back these fallacies. Feminist theory is just one of them. Marxist theory, on which feminist theory is based, is another.

But my favorite fallacy right now is ad populum argumentation. I see it more and more on TV news programs both on Fox and on MSNBC. This is when they quote a poll to show that there is truth on the side of something.

Most people believe that President Obama is doing a good job, therefore he is doing a good job.

Most people believe the economy is going to improve, and therefore it is.

I see this fallacy almost every time I turn on the news.

Most people believe in Christianity, and therefore it's true.

Most people now believe gay marriage is a good thing, and so therefore it is.

I find it striking how often we all now use obvious fallacies instead of relevant and rigorous thought, but maybe it was always this way. Maybe we should just relax and go with the flow.

Most people think that's probably true, since all the others do.; 7/4/09, 9:02 AM
EnigmatiCore said...: Stupid people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates.

Unpersuasive. Patrick Kennedy and Cynthia McKinney spring to mind.; 7/4/09, 9:03 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Sarah Palin is obviously not stupid. What is interesting is what is her long term goal. Is it running for president as Ann thinks (I think this decision will prevent that in 2012) or is it to play a bigger roll in national politics without running for president (which I suspect is the case in the short term)?; 7/4/09, 9:10 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: In short Brian is asking people not to be lazy.; 7/4/09, 9:17 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Olson is spot on about polling.; 7/4/09, 9:19 AM
Beta Conservative said...: I think we are conditioned to assume that people who speak in a way that denotes lots of elite education as really smart, and all others as not so bright.

But the Best and the Brightest (one of my fav books) have presided over the last depression and this one, expanded the role of government on a constant basis, led us in to Vietnam, etc.

Is there any point in American where we, as a nation, went running over the cliff and the big thinkers from the Ivy's weren't directing traffic while assuring the great unwashed everything would be fine?

Sarah is among those unwashed, and to many of us that is not a negative.; 7/4/09, 9:28 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Hey, did you hear Sarah Palin quit as Governor of Alaska? Excellent.

Anyone who can't finish the job of being Governor and quits under a cloud of scandals would obviously make an excellent President.

Palin 2012!; 7/4/09, 9:38 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: The article Ann links to is lame. He never cites on person who says she is "stupid".

Though I don't think she's very bright. She's given plenty of evidence of that.

And if she thinks quitting Governor helps her qualifications to be President, well, that's pretty dumb!; 7/4/09, 9:43 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: She was just jealous that Sanford was getting more press than her.; 7/4/09, 9:44 AM
Invisible Man said...: I think we are conditioned to assume that people who speak in a way that denotes lots of elite education as really smart, and all others as not so bright.

Now you sound like ona dem dar sissy librahs who think every child should be treated like the special snowflake that they are.

Seriously, being able to speak clearly and coherently isn't the sign of an elite education. It's the sign of an intelligent way to communicate with others. Even conservatives thought that her speech made no sense and was rambling.

Let's for the sake of not getting everybody's knickers in twist say that she's dumb for a politician. The writer has a point that dumb people usually don't get elected to high office, but I think its fair to rate them within their group. Cynthia McKinney is a moron for a politician, but she has found a way to be elected so she would probably find her way into a managerial position at the local Piggly Wiggly if she had to start bagging groceries with everyone else. And while Sarah doesn't rise to that level, compared to most politicians she just doesn't seem to have the knowledge nor the ability to express herself. Also, while you want to brush aside education, her academic career just doesn't speak of someone whose very smart. I wouldn't care if she went to University of Idaho and got a 4 year education with good grades. But being an academic nomad including all the various community colleges doesn't add up to a strong thinker who even was able to firmly cut it in school.

Sarah Palin: maybe not the dumbest, but dumber than your average politician.; 7/4/09, 9:55 AM
OhioAnne said...: And yet, Alpha Liberal, with your last three posts you managed to provide a perfect example of the point the author was making ....; 7/4/09, 9:57 AM
OhioAnne said...: Also, while you want to brush aside education, her academic career just doesn't speak of someone whose very smart. I wouldn't care if she went to University of Idaho and got a 4 year education with good grades. But being an academic nomad including all the various community colleges doesn't add up to a strong thinker who even was able to firmly cut it in school.

I am a college academic advisor by profession.

MOST of the students I deal with daily have attended more than one school. In the summer I commonly see students from the state's more prestigous schools sign up for classes.

Simple reason? Cost of tuition.

How is paying $500/credit hour for a basic sociology class a sign of being "smarter" than paying $80/credit hour?; 7/4/09, 10:04 AM
Beta Conservative said...: Look, the guy who's in there now is the epitome of the liberal/media elite wet dream.

Harvard educated, law review and all that.

So far his foreign policy has consisted of a series of apologies and a determination not to meddle in the affairs of other nations, particularly when they hate the US and are slaughtering their own people in the street. He has managed to make an exception for Israel and FOH (Friends of Hugo).

He also manages to insult our best ally at ever opportunity.

He has gone about the business of turning us into a 3rd world debtor nation on the premise that passing a lefty wish list of new and massive spending would keep unemployment down. How's that working out?

The list is long, and he's only just begun. Every day I wake up and check the news, wondering if he and his minions could f##k things up more, only to find they haven't even hit stride yet.

Sarah, for all her offensive ignorance and you betchas, would have intuitively made better decisions in any of these areas.

What we are being treated to is formulaic huge government crap by a president and his henchmen who are carrying on in the best tradition of doing the heavy intellectual lifting for the rest of us, and leaving things FUBAR for the next guy.; 7/4/09, 10:13 AM
Unknown said...: Initially I thought of Professor Higgins when he first saw Eliza and said "She's so deliciously low..."

Well, the world tends to conspire and Higgins won the bet against Pickering and pulled her off as a Duchess. I think that girl gone bonkers, like many before her, just may want it bad enough.

Do not underestimate a woman with a mission. Her sheer protean will reminds me of Madonna. A lot.; 7/4/09, 10:23 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: By 2012, Americans may be so fed up that they want a president and a Congress to just keep their hands off everything and get the f out of our way. If so, that will help pols like Palin.; 7/4/09, 10:32 AM
Fred4Pres said...: That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

The Campaign Spot

Of course, some are immune to that by not having kids. Too bad beagles can't be slandered. They do not care. They eat their own poop you know. Some of their owners should too (since they already roll around in it and throw it at people they disagree with).; 7/4/09, 10:37 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Anyone who can't finish the job of being Governor (insert Senator of Illinois) and quits under a cloud of scandals would obviously make an excellent President.

Didn't seem to be a problem for Obama, did it?

Of course it didn't hurt to have the lap dogs of the media humping his leg all the way to the White House either.; 7/4/09, 10:40 AM
garage mahal said...: Republicans are getting more weird by the day. That press conference was just bizarre.; 7/4/09, 10:51 AM
William said...: I thought that Sarah, while packing away her designer clothes for return to the RNC, probably breathed a sigh of regret that would push her halfway back to Washington. Perhaps she is now exhaling a sigh of relief that will push her the remaining distance.....Or maybe not. Perhaps she just wants a more normal and lucrative life. It is depressing to make note of how many mistake normalcy for stupidity and/or Machiavellan schemes.; 7/4/09, 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: AlphaLiberal --

"Though I don't think she's very bright. She's given plenty of evidence of that."

Just because you don't understand most of what you hear and read doesn't mean it's dumb. You need more JuCo English comprehension courses.; 7/4/09, 11:23 AM
Once written, twice... said...: Twenty years ago Republicans use to go on ad nauseum about how the Democrats engage in "identity politics" and the "politics of victim hood." Now Republicans are the biggest practitioners of both. Sarah Palin is the most recent and best example.; 7/4/09, 11:41 AM
MadisonMan said...: Didn't seem to be a problem for Obama, did it?

Remind me, who was Obama running against? Oh yeah: another senator!

I agree that quitting her Governor's post in mid-term will be no obstacle to Sarah Palin's hypothetical Presidential Run if her opponent is also a governor who has bailed mid-term.; 7/4/09, 11:42 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/4/09, 11:58 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Remind me, who was Obama running against? Oh yeah: another senator!

I was speaking of Obama's de facto quiting of his Senatorial seat while spending all of his time campaigning for President. You know....never showing up for his JOB as a Senator and voting present most of the time. The whole Blago scandal is precisely because Obama didn't finish his senatorial term. So by your reasoning, Obama should never have run for President until he completely finished his term???? I'm up for that.

I guess it's OK with you that Obama and Clinton and McCain et al: all basically abandoned their jobs as Senators to spend ALL their time on the campaign trail.

I think it is much more honorable to resign, when is your intention to abandon or short change your existing job in the attempt to get another better job. Senate, Governor, City Council or bookkeeper in a lumber yard.

If you aren't going to be able to do your job or you are purposely short changing your boss (in this case the people who voted you into your position) the right thing to do is to resign.

Same thing for a cheating spouse. If you are going to fuck around on your wife, you probably should end the marriage first.

I think it was a brilliant move. Now Sarah can be free of all those stupid and wasteful "ethics" lawsuits. She can now spend her time doing what she wants without dereliction of duty or having to parse her words as the Governor of a State. Free at last.....free at last.

Kick butt Sarah!!! (See there, Original Mike I changed the metaphor just for you); 7/4/09, 12:01 PM
Beta Conservative said...: When speaking about identity politics, I think Republican were referring to those who were raised in middle class comfort, used some mix of affirmative action and their own abilities to attain status and income, and stil claimed the victim label, beacuse of the group they were part of.

This still happens every day. Attackers of Sotomayer are anti-Hispanic, "Tea Baggers" are racist, etc.

In the case of Palin, we have a mother of 5 and her family savaged by a left wing hate machine that is bound by neither rules nor a sense of common dececny.

I think she is just sick of the time and money she is spending defending herself against people with no moral compass.; 7/4/09, 12:03 PM
Beta Conservative said...: By the way, if she were a pro-choice lefty babe, she would have victim status, and there would be much howling over these attacks.; 7/4/09, 12:17 PM
garage mahal said...: I think it was a brilliant move. Now Sarah can be free of all those stupid and wasteful "ethics" lawsuits..

I'm sure Nixon wished he could have been free of all those stupid wasteful ethic complaints too. No better way to clear your name up for a presidential run that to quit the job the complaints arose from. Or as Palin puts it "Advancing the ball in a different direction". Backwards or sideways? LOL; 7/4/09, 12:18 PM
Beth said...: We're nowhere near the 2012 election; she could have finished this term as governor and still run for president with no problems. And by this logic, are we now expecting all those other elected officials who will join in the primaries for 2012 to step down first? That's absurd, as are any "oh yeah, what about OBAMA?" retorts that don't likewise include McCain, Clinton, and every single other person in the 2008 election who at the time, held another office.; 7/4/09, 12:35 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: 1. A search for "sarah palin is stupid" brings up over a million hits. Bear in mind that's in quotes.

2. Others who are actually stupid are most of her supporters in the "blogosphere", including those who don't support her that much but who at least don't like her detractors.

Her supporters are letting all those who smeared her and who attacked her family get off scot-free, and they're helping the Beltway establishment get the message that "if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

If you have a website, and you actually want to do something effective rather than being like the vast majority of blogs and just jumping up and down, take a look at the titles in this this partial list of the smears the MSM used against her. Many of them follow the same format, and that format is designed with something specific in mind.

More on that here. I'm not happy with giving away the store, but then again - based on years of experience with blogs and others online - there obviously aren't too many who are bright or activist enough to do anything so I'm not that worried.; 7/4/09, 12:38 PM
traditionalguy said...: Ronald Reagan was a stupid dope actor with nothing to say that was not in a script some nazi wrote for him, and he was not even awake most days. That was the story and the liberals and media said it was gospel truth for 12 years from 1976 until 1988. So one more like him wont hurt a thing.; 7/4/09, 1:43 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: We're nowhere near the 2012 election; she could have finished this term as governor and still run for president with no problems. And by this logic, are we now expecting all those other elected officials who will join in the primaries for 2012 to step down first? That's absurd, as are any "oh yeah, what about OBAMA?" retorts that don't likewise include McCain, Clinton, and every single other person in the 2008 election who at the time, held another office.

I believe if you read my above post, you will see that I also included McCain Clinton et al in the job shirking analogy.

Also if you would take the time to actually read or listen to Palin's entire speech instead of snippets of it or someone else's opinion, you will see that one of the main reasons that she gives (among many others) for resigning is the never ending avalanche of frivolous "ethics" lawsuits that are making it impossible to conduct the business of state.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but this isn’t what anyone had in mind for Alaska.

Actually, by that logic which I stated already, they SHOULD step down from their positions if they are going to spend a great deal of time running for office. It is only responsible.

Beth, you are a teacher I believe. If you spent most of your classroom time studying for an advanced degree to further your teaching career, instead of teaching your students and if you spent most of your free time on your own goals instead of preparing lessons and otherwise doing the job that you are being paid to do.....don't you think that your employers and your students are being badly served. In fact you should be fired.

It is the same thing. If Palin or McCain or anybody wants to run for another office and it impedes their ability to do their job. They should quit!!!

They don't because they want to have their cake and eat it too. The selfish pigs. If they run for President and lose, they still have their fall back position of Senator or Governor.; 7/4/09, 1:55 PM
Paul said...: 2012? She's working on 2010 first. That is, helping the GOP in the House and Senate races. I suspect her success or failure in that endeavor will determine her trajectory in 2012.

I think she's very canny and knows exactly what she's doing. Her trial by fire by the media will sharpen her skills and toughen her hide. Just like the lick-spittle media's shameless fellating of The Won has insured he remains a weak, vain, and careless man who will fold like a wet paper sack when public opinion turns against him.; 7/4/09, 1:56 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Lots of people who are not stupid are not interested in economics or foreign relations.

But populism isn't a great substitute for interest.

Beta addressed the issue of our President's interest in foreign relations. But who can realistically assert that he had a single clue as to the economy when he took office?

No matter how "stupid" the left paints Ms. Palin about the economy, her understanding appeared to totally dwarf that of Mr. Obama, who has managed, along with the Democratic Congress that he helped make unstoppable with his coattails, to turn a economic slowdown into what is likely the worst recession since the Great Depression. He has flushed trillions of dollars down the drain, primarily it seems to pay off Democratic campaign contributors, tried hard to destroy the American automobile industry, and is set to quadruple Bush (43)'s deficit, etc. And that is without raising taxes through the tax and bribe (aka cap and trade) economic retardant bill, and likely raising taxes on healthcare too, while destroying that industry while he is at it. And he is doing this in a rush, because there apparently really is a chance that Al Gore was right, and NYC might be under water by the end of the century (but probably only if a big enough meteor hits the Atlantic).

The last time that Keynesian economics was really tried, the Great Depression lingered on for better than a decade. And the almost sure fire method of getting out of recessions is to cut taxes. So, Mr. economic brilliance, and all his flunkies, has implemented Keynesian economics that would have made FDR jealous, while raising taxes in the middle of a recession (and has promised to raise them a lot more).

So, for all those who attack Ms. Palin on her economic illiteracy, I will ask, what has she proposed economically that comes anywhere close to what Mr. Obama has really done in that realm?; 7/4/09, 1:59 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Bruce:

Palin understands how a fish gets on to a customer's plate in a restaurant. That knowledge helps Palin grasp the basic fundamentals of economics.

Obama is going to make sure everyone has a fish on their plate. He is not sure how to do that but he just will. That tells you the extent of Obama's knowledge of economics.; 7/4/09, 2:54 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Oh, poor Sarah Palin. She thought she'd parachute into the presidential election at the last moment, run around the country calling Obama the best pal of terrorists, and no one would notice she hadn't prepared herself to handle even basic questions in interviews. People called her stupid because she came off as ignorant. That's what happens when you apply for a job you are not at all prepared for.

Maybe should've copied what the Dems did with Obama. They could've given Palin a prime time speech at their convention to get the hype machine rolling, then have her go back to Alaska and actually prepare herself to enter to primaries in 4 years. Then, maybe she'd have actually been able to speak competently on the issues instead of making everyone feel nervous when it dawned on them she doesn't know what she's talking about. This also would've helped her avoid the mad scramble by the media to investigate her.

But they couldn't do that because McCain was looking for a Hail Mary pass. The GOP played recklessly with my country and I resent that.

I don't know if Palin is stupid. No one knows, because she usually comes off as a programmed robot spitting out talking points. What I do know is she thought the American people were stupid. She obviously was not ready to talk with knowledge (let alone expertise) on most of the issues facing America. It was a joke and an insult to be asked to pretend she was a credible candidate.

As you can see in these threads, the right wingers think that's okay, because she would "instinctively" do the right thing once in office, because she didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby.

She applied for a very powerful job that she was not prepared for. A smarter person would've known she was not yet ready for that job, instead of trying to con her way into the VP under a elderly president who had a high chance of dying in office. I don't give a shit if Palin feels people were mean to her. She's plenty mean to people herself (not to mention how mean she is to wolves), and she was asking for a whole lot of power.

What did she think? She'd jump in the race, wink to the camera, and no one would want to find out what the deal is with this woman before putting her a heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief? If you can't take the heat, go back to Alaska, dummy. And, oh look, it turns out you quit on on your job up there. Yeah, real presidential material there...

I love my country, my neighbors, my family, and this world too much to let this silly woman be Commander in Chief. She could come back in 3 years as a much more polished and informed candidate, but that wouldn't change what I already saw from her in the last election, and I will never vote for her, no way, no day.; 7/4/09, 2:58 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: In a year or so, when Hillary Clinton suddenly resigns in the middle of some Mideast war and claims it is for personal reasons, I hope CNN and MSNBC and the various pundits and lib commentators here pronounce her as "erratic".; 7/4/09, 3:13 PM
bagoh20 said...: Everybody has 24 hours a day to educate themselves. Higher education primarily involves listening to someone who has little experience at anything other than going to school. That's fine, but it is not superior to spending the same time educating yourself though action, experience and the other challenges that the world offers. Truth is you can not do both at the same time, so the college educated have made sacrifices in their wisdom as well by attending school rather than doing. Of course the ideal is to get both, but many do not.

I have interviewed, hired and managed hundreds of people and some of the stupidest and least capable people were "highly" educated.

When it comes down to it, the only reliable measure of a person's ability is accomplishment. Palin has shown admirable ability to accomplish things, and also we likely are currently screwed nationally.; 7/4/09, 3:46 PM
TRundgren said...: It may be time for a community college grad who has raised a family and knows how to balance a checkbook.

The Ivy league elites have simply evolved more complicated algorithms to game this already corrupted financial and politcal system.; 7/4/09, 4:39 PM
Minzo said...: "Palin understands how a fish gets on to a customer's plate in a restaurant. That knowledge helps Palin grasp the basic fundamentals of economics.

Obama is going to make sure everyone has a fish on their plate. He is not sure how to do that but he just will. That tells you the extent of Obama's knowledge of economics."

What does that even mean?; 7/4/09, 4:43 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Palin understands how a fish gets on to a customer's plate in a restaurant. That knowledge helps Palin grasp the basic fundamentals of economics.

Obama is going to make sure everyone has a fish on their plate. He is not sure how to do that but he just will. That tells you the extent of Obama's knowledge of economics."

What does that even mean?

I think it means thaat you probably voted for Obama.; 7/4/09, 4:46 PM
bagoh20 said...: All this smug criticism of Palin and whether she was prepared for the job from people who voted for a man with no experience and no accomplishment and doubled down with the unequaled impressiveness of Joe Biden. I mean even if you accept that Palin was not qualified, you really have be delusional to be smug about it considering what we got instead.; 7/4/09, 4:53 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I should have added "Obama wants to put a fish on everyone's plate even if you don't like fish".; 7/4/09, 5:03 PM
Jeremy said...: But at another point she invoked a military quotation, misattributing it to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in what seemed to be an effort to wave aside any suggestion that she was abandoning the fight. “He said, ‘We’re not retreating; we are advancing in another direction,’ ” she said.

*The remark was actually said by Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith.

Duh.; 7/4/09, 5:15 PM
Jeremy said...: OhioAnne said..."MOST of the students I deal with daily have attended more than one school. In the summer I commonly see students from the state's more prestigous schools sign up for classes. Simple reason? Cost of tuition."

You actually think Princess Sarah attended all of these colleges because of "tuition?"

What? She spent all those years "shopping" for the best prices?

THAT is patently ridiculous.; 7/4/09, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: That was a very unconvincing article. The implication that successful politicians are necessarily smart is simply out of touch with reality. Many members of Congress as well as state leaders are not big thinkers. Maybe they're not stupid, but they're not necessarily smart either. They are often the face of a team, and the real brains are elsewhere in the team. (Another basketball analogy); 7/4/09, 5:19 PM
Jeremy said...: AJ Lynch said..."I should have added "Obama wants to put a fish on everyone's plate even if you don't like fish"."

Based on what?

Your lack of intellect?

And you wonder why I think so many here are dumber than a bag of rocks?; 7/4/09, 5:20 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The remark was actually said by Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith.

And she was running last time against whom? Do you really want to get into a competition between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin here, as to which one misspoke, or in his case, just BSed the most?; 7/4/09, 5:21 PM
Jeremy said...: Minzo said..."What does that even mean?"

It doesn't mean anything...at least in terms of any logic.

She just says it because it in some way denigrates Obama.

That's the whole point.

Other than the one on top of her head.; 7/4/09, 5:22 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: And you wonder why I think so many here are dumber than a bag of rocks?

Jeremy again shows how to argue ad hominem.; 7/4/09, 5:24 PM
Jeremy said...: Bruce - If you're giving a resignation speech, especially as important as that of the Governor of a state, you should at least have the wherewithal to know who the fuck you're actually quoting.

This is just another example of someone with little or real intellect.

And what in the world does her silly comment have to do with Joe Biden?

Absolutely nothing.; 7/4/09, 5:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Bruce Hayden - And you're the idiot who just posted a defense of Princess Palin's lack of intellect by attacking Joe Biden.

As if that has anything to do with her resignation or what she said.

Thanks for shoring up my argument, dumbfuck.; 7/4/09, 5:27 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: She just says it because it in some way denigrates Obama.

That's the whole point.

Other than the one on top of her head.

Notice how he didn't bother to address the original point, which is that President Obama, while apparently the smartest man to have ever sat in the Oval Office, is still totally clueless as far as economics goes.

Of course, he could get into a substantive debate as to the merits of Obama's economics policies, including the "Stimulus" bill, the budget full of earmarks, handling the auto industry problems (and, more particularly, bailing out the UAW's pensions), cap and trade, and socialized medicine. While he is at it, he can also gloat as to how well Mr. Obama predicted unemployment rates, and how many jobs have been supposedly saved, by those economic policies.

Or, he can just continue lobbing stink bombs.; 7/4/09, 5:29 PM
Jeremy said...: And to think so many here actually believe this twit could serve as President of our country.

She can't even complete her term as Governor, using this completely illogical and nonsensical reasoning:

"I thought about how much fun other governors have as lame ducks. They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions.”

I’m not going to put Alaskans through that,” she said. “I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That’s not how I’m wired. I’m not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual.”

What does that even mean??

She thought about how much "fun" other Governors have? How much they get to "travel?"

And she's leaving office because she doesn't want to "put Alaskans through that"??

Through WHAT?

It makes absolutely NO sense.

The woman is a dolt.; 7/4/09, 5:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If you're giving a resignation speech, especially as important as that of the Governor of a state, you should at least have the wherewithal to know who the fuck you're actually quoting.

I could say the same about someone who wanted to be VP, or, indeed, became such.

Sorry, I don't buy into your theory here that Palin misattributing a quote shows she is stupid, but Obama and Biden doing similar doesn't. If you take your argument to its logical extreme, you would have to conclude that our current VP has an room temperature IQ, when the room in question is the root cellar.; 7/4/09, 5:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Bruce Hayden said..."...President Obama, while apparently the smartest man to have ever sat in the Oval Office, is still totally clueless as far as economics goes."

That's just your opinion, ass wipe.

He's been President for about 6 months and as you know, inherited this mess from the dummy YOU supported.

Blaming Obama for the worldwide economic mess is nothing more than right wing bullshit.

Come up with anything to support Princess Palin's sudden resignation, abandoning the state she says she loves...instead of throwing out silly whining and bitching about Obama and Biden.

They have nothing to do with the topic at hand...you just don't have a reasonable argument to defend Palin.; 7/4/09, 5:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Bruce Hayden said..."I could say the same about someone who wanted to be VP, or, indeed, became such."

AGAIN: What does THAT have to do with what Palin said??

Nothing.; 7/4/09, 5:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Little Brucie's entire argument to defend Palin is that Obama and Biden say things he thinks are incorrect, too.

This is the defense of a fucking moron.; 7/4/09, 5:40 PM
Jeremy said...: "Federal Indictments for Palin in Embezzlement Scandal May Be on the Way"

Geeee, think this might have anything to do with the "sudden" resignation?; 7/4/09, 5:47 PM
Synova said...: "Advancing in a different direction" or variously... "advancing to the rear" instead of saying "retreat"... is one of those military culture things such as saying "target rich environment" when you're totally out numbered.

Chances are Sun Tsu said it...

And every general in every army since, in one form or another.; 7/4/09, 6:01 PM
Beth said...: DBQ: I disagree with your analogy. She ran for governor. She ought to finish the job. If I were interested in getting another degree, I should step down from my position, yes. But I'd finish the semester first - I might even finish the time of my appointment first (I'm not tenured, and I'm appointed year by year.) Only an extreme health issue would put me out of my classroom in the middle of my committed time. If she didn't want to be governor, why'd she run for the office?

If the ethics law allows frivolous investigations at the expense of the state, that law needs to be changed.; 7/4/09, 6:04 PM
Shanti Mangala said...: Jeremy, how is the resignation supposed to stop the indictments on the way? Care to enlighten us?; 7/4/09, 6:42 PM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/4/09, 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I find it funny how many "intelligent" posters there buy into the most idiotic bilge.

"She doesn't know the Bush doctrine" --- except there wasn't ONE doctrine and the interviewer didn't know it EITHER.

Maybe should've copied what the Dems did with Obama.

You mean lie about basically every issue on the table?

Remember when Obama claimed to be fiscally conservative?; 7/4/09, 6:52 PM
hombre said...: "Federal Indictments for Palin in Embezzlement Scandal May Be on the Way"

Jeremy picked that up over at Kos when he stopped by to get his daily marching orders.

Let's all respond in kind to Jeremy: "Shit, piss, f*ck! Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!" There. That should do it.

Now, what were we talking about?; 7/4/09, 6:54 PM
TZ said...: I'm not one who would vote for Palin, at least not now, but it's certainly not because I think she's "stupid." How ridiculous! I agree with many who think that her world view when she was picked for VP was quite limited and she wasn't ready for prime time. I blame McCain for that.

She's had a remarkable career and she and her family are quite a success story by any measure. They did it the hard way. I respect her immensely for that.

I also thought her resignation speech sucked. I've watched it a couple times and it seemed to me that she was fighting back some emotion there, and she obviously rambled. Unfortunate, but hardly stupid.

There will be psychology courses in colleges soon that explore this crazed reaction the left has to even the mention of Palin's name. I'd put money on it.

Jeremy said:
"The remark was actually said by Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith.

Duh"

Yeah, like Jeremy had any idea. I caught it right away. We jarheads don't like army types getting credit for famous jarhead quotes!; 7/4/09, 6:58 PM
Synova said...: "If the ethics law allows frivolous investigations at the expense of the state, that law needs to be changed."

It does.

Clearly enough, no matter who's fault it was it got written the way it did, Palin can't be the one to change it. Someone else has to.; 7/4/09, 7:05 PM
bagoh20 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/4/09, 7:13 PM
Cedarford said...: Maguro said...
How insightful of him to notice that she's no crazier than Bill Maher, Mahmoud Achminejad or Timothy McVeigh. Liberals are so smart.

Well, Skeptoid was a good enough read that I bookmarked him. Thanks for the tip on a great thinker, Althouse!

He had a great essay. Use of "crazy, nuts" may marginalize your foe in your mind, but does nothing in an ideological or military struggle with such a person or movement except introduce smug complacency.

Like Palin, Jesse Jackson was someone who was famous for saying silly, nonsensical things and evoking visceral antipathy outside his enthusiastic pack of true believer followers. Yet his charismatic power was real, and his depth of support of "His People" enough to give him true power.

Ahmadinejad is not "crazy" in context of 10s of millions of loyal Iranians who testify to the depth of his backing. Nor, like Palin, is he stupid or "in need of meds"..nor are other widely detested ideological "nuts" like Bush II, neocon John Bolton, Netanyahu.
Ahmadinejad is the son of a village blacksmith. The 1st of his clan to go to college, let alone get a PhD. A war hero. A proven, popular leader of others since college days. An advisor to 8 PhD candidates in engineering and logistics as mayor of Tehran. He says bombastic things about the Zionists. BFD! Reagan said bombastic things about the Soviets and Cubans.

==================
The Europhile said...
Initially I thought of Professor Higgins when he first saw Eliza and said "She's so deliciously low..."

And you, sir, made a delicious observation that speaks to Eliza Palins appeal to her afficionados. She is a "gem in the rough", a vessel that can be transformed into just what all those Higgins exactly want..

=====================
garage mahal said...
I think it was a brilliant move. Now Sarah can be free of all those stupid and wasteful "ethics" lawsuits..

I'm sure Nixon wished he could have been free of all those stupid wasteful ethic complaints too..

Insistance on ethics over realpolitik may cause massive death. Belief in "Rule of Law" rather than the overall good of a society, through fetishizing small violations as major, may cause greater violations to the social contract than the trivial matter being punished as "major".

You take down Nixon over a 3rd-rate burglary he didn't know about, a dumb coverup he did know about - you may gain slight "moral superiority".
But the tradeoff for that was loss of S Vietnam and 100,000 deaths there, plus 2 million in Cambodia, maybe 800,000 in Africa and Central America as the Soviets and their proxies ran wild.

Better we had just documented that Nixon was as big a dirtbag on "Rule of Law" as FDR, JFK, LBJ were and had a reformist election in 1976 rather than the orgy of self-righteousness that weakened America until Reagan had started getting a grip on restoration in 1982 or so. No Soviets in Afghanistan, and all that spilled out from that.

America had gotten smarter the next time "Rule of Law!!" (rule by lawyers over The People) - had threatened to paralyze the Nation and badly weaken us over the similarly trivial (by FDR, JFK,LBJ, Nixon) "cover-up, law breaking, concealing law-breaking".

Not worth it. Deposing Presidents & Leaders for infractions outside rampant corruption, truly serious felonies, treason, or rank & dangerous incompetence is not worth the harm it inflicts on society and democracy.

The last thing we need is the growing power of a cabal of elite lawyers heading or fronting special interests inside the Beltway and in state Capitals plotting who they will use "rule of law" to raise, and who they will use it to destroy, to serve the Elite Lawyers Cabals..; 7/4/09, 7:17 PM
Once written, twice... said...: I just watched the full video of Sarah Palin's resignation. She is pretty stupid.; 7/4/09, 8:21 PM
Once written, twice... said...: I also suspect that for her another shoe is about to drop.; 7/4/09, 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: If the ethics law allows frivolous investigations at the expense of the state, that law needs to be changed.

Beth, you nailed it. Also the personal expense of the governor. Palin is looking at a personal legal bill of about a half million dollars. The Palins have done well, but they're not rich. I take her at her word that the apparently frivolous ethics investigations were preventing her from doing her job, and were threatening her personal finances.

Is this so hard to understand? Her political enemies found a way, through an ill-considered "reform," to drive her from office. I thought she made it clear this was the main reason she's stepping down.

Personally, I favor driving politicians from office the old-fashioned way: with the ballot box. But until enough politicians of BOTH parties begin to feel the pain of such tactics as these idiot citizen ethics complaints, I'm afraid we will never see the end of such anti-democratic shenanigans.; 7/4/09, 9:04 PM
Beth said...: I agree to some extent, Theo, but if that's the case, ought she not to engage with the legislature on that front? The next governor's just as open to the problem. I don't think the ethics law is the real reason; how is she out of range, anyway, if people want to bring ethics charges still, or continue with ones still pressing. No, this makes no more sense to me than the lame-duck reasoning.; 7/4/09, 9:13 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: He's been President for about 6 months and as you know, inherited this mess from the dummy YOU supported.

He may have inherited some of the problems from his predecessor, but he then went on to make things much, much, worse. I really don't think that Bush (43) caused Obama to sign that pork infested "stimulus" bill that has done everything else except stimulate the economy, or that bloated budget with 8,000+ earmarks in it, or to take over GM and Chrysler to bail out the union pension plans there, or to push for massive energy cost increases in the form of the tax and bribe (aka cap and trade) bill, or to push for socializing our medical system, all in the midst of a recession. And, indeed, Bush (43) probably deserves less fault for the lending crisis than Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress (remember, Obama was in th Senate when this all was happening) as they prevented the Bush Administration from trying to rein in the sub-prime lending (indeed, Barney Frank is pushing to start it up again, with TARP money paid back by banks).

Just like Bush (43) inherited a recession from his predecessor, so to some extent did Obama. The big difference though is what they and their party did with it. In Bush's case, tax cuts helped us come out fairly quickly. In Obama's case, large tax increases and massively increased federal spending are going to prolong and deepen the recession.; 7/4/09, 9:23 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Personally, I favor driving politicians from office the old-fashioned way: with the ballot box. But until enough politicians of BOTH parties begin to feel the pain of such tactics as these idiot citizen ethics complaints, I'm afraid we will never see the end of such anti-democratic shenanigans.

This isn't the first time that a Republican has been hounded out of office this way - remember Newt Gingrich? Several hundred ethics complaints, and maybe one with any merit whatsoever.

Of course, Congress has pretty much exempted itself from ethics review, with the accession of Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership. Much of the top rank of her leadership, except for her and her Majority leader, seem to be under ethical clouds right now, and yet, somehow, none of it is being investigated. And there is plenty of dirt to spread around in the Senate too, from Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, and down.; 7/4/09, 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Beth: From what I read, there's only one BS newly-filed ethics charge, which, I think her resignation will render moot. She was charged w/being absent at an important time during the end of the legislative session on a political trip. Stuff & nonsense. This is normal behavior from every governor I've ever seen, especially Mitt Romney, so I don't see this as anything that will carry over.

She made the point very plain: The current process is taking a majority of her time and threatens to bankrupt her. Her enemies have driven her from office. Taking her at her word, I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Now there may be more to it, if we believe the Kos fantasies. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. We all could be wrong. Maybe she's ill. Maybe she's pregnant again. Who knows? But from what she said, and what I know of the past 6 mos. of ethics charges, her stepping down because of them makes perfect sense.

I really doubt she will ever run for elective office again, but, again, that's just speculation, because none of us really know yet.; 7/4/09, 9:30 PM
hombre said...: Beth wrote: ...ought she not to engage with the legislature on that front?

It doesn't work for a sitting politician to attempt repeal or modification of laws under which she is being investigated. That is particularly so when she has been the target of "anything goes" smears as has Palin. It just adds fuel to the fire.
------------------
Lelee wrote: I just watched the full video of Sarah Palin's resignation. She is pretty stupid.

Oh, I don't know. She pegged Oblahblah for a phony in pretty short order and some folks still haven't figured it out.; 7/4/09, 9:58 PM
Beth said...: elhombre, since when do mavericks follow precedent? Resigning early isn't the usual way of being a successful elected official, either.

I'm grateful right now that she isn't walking away from the vice presidency. We didn't have a great set of options in 2008, but we made the right choice.; 7/4/09, 10:56 PM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/4/09, 10:56 PM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/4/09, 10:56 PM
Beth said...: Odd - I clicked once but my comment posted three times.; 7/4/09, 10:56 PM
Jim said...: Theo -

"Now there may be more to it, if we believe the Kos fantasies. I doubt it, but I could be wrong."

Given the action of her legal team, I'd say she's pretty confident that there's nothing to the reports about any criminal investigation.

If you want the honest truth, this is probably one of the main reasons that she resigned her office. As governor, she doesn't have the ability to pursue the slanders and defamations that the Left has regularly engaged in - just look at this thread for a few examples. As a private citizen, she has recourse. There is a far different standard for what you're allowed to say about a private citizen who is not an active candidate for office than there is for a sitting public official.

Being a woman of action, it wouldn't surprise me that her legal team advised her that if she wanted to stop the lies that the Left is constantly spewing about her and her family, that she would be best advantaged to do so as a private citizen.

After what they have tried to do to her family, I say sue every one of them who has issued easily provable lies about her. Every. Single. One. A line in the sand must be drawn.

People need to learn that if you won't be bound by the lines of decency that there are laws that protect people from your venom. You don't get to say anything you want and get away with it. If you can't back up your accusation about someone, then you need to understand that the target of your accusation has legal recourse to sue you back to the Stone Age for your lies. So if you're going to launch baseless lies and slanders, you better be prepared for return fire.

Good for her, and good for everyone who understands that politics may be a contact sport, but that doesn't mean there are no rules and that you're allowed to do anything you want no matter how disgusting and evil it is. The Left may not like it: but that's only because they're now on notice that Palin's not just going to be a sitting duck for them any more.; 7/4/09, 11:00 PM
Jim said...: Beth -

"I'm grateful right now that she isn't walking away from the vice presidency. We didn't have a great set of options in 2008, but we made the right choice."

Because Mr. Gaffe-A-Minute isn't a national embarrassment who can't figure out the difference between a train and an automobile, right?

The guy that admits that Obama won't even let him in the room when important policy decisions are being made?

Yeah. If that's what you consider the "right choice," then your ill opinion of Palin is the best kind of endorsement.; 7/4/09, 11:03 PM
Jim said...: Bruce -

"Or, he can just continue lobbing stink bombs."

That's all he ever does. Just put him on ignore. Any attempt at discussion or argument with him winds up with him begging for fellatio or some other playground insult.

Just remind him that his mother's still waiting for her smokes, give him a cookie and send him on his way.; 7/4/09, 11:20 PM
Jim said...: bagoh20 -

"I mean even if you accept that Palin was not qualified, you really have be delusional to be smug about it considering what we got instead."

I think you've sufficiently summed up this entire thread in a single sentence.; 7/4/09, 11:23 PM
Beth said...: Jim, the team of McCain and Palin wasn't a winner. I don't regret not voting for them. This recent decision on her part makes me quite comfortable with that decision.

Despite that, I wish I'd had a better choice on the Democratic ticket. Things can be complicated that way.; 7/4/09, 11:36 PM
Sprezzatura said...: I hope that this doesn't cause any of the Palin supporters to question their defense of Palin.

She's an unfortunate uber-victim of the evil librul media. Don't forget that the more things seem to be going wrong for Palin, the more good conservatives have proof that the evil librul media is picking on her, and the more good conservatives need to come to Palin's defense to support and promote (please, please, please promote) her.

Stay strong conservatives, don't fall for the tricks of that evil librul media.

Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 7/4/09, 11:43 PM
JAL said...: The next governor's just as open to the problem. I don't think the ethics law is the real reason; how is she out of range, anyway, if people want to bring ethics charges still, or continue with ones still pressing...

You don't get it, do you?

This governor and her family have been savaged personally, and she professionally, even after she was no longer the VP candidate. This is not about any governor, it is about this person who has triggered a pathological response in some people which goes beyond the pale.

While the law needs to be changed, as someone above noted, she is not in the position to change it.

When idiotic ethics charges are filed over holding fish and wearing jackets it will not stop for the next 15 months if she is still governor and walks around Alaska wearing the wrong jacket or picking up the wrong fish.

If she is a private citizen there can be no more new behaviors to provoke the hunters.

The goal is to incapacitate her, as the goal of the Dems in Washington is to overwhelm with the rapid fire unread unexamined bills codifying an ideology which is hidden and abominable to most Americans.

I do not understand yet what is really going on in this situation, but with some reflection I can see some sense to what she did. The woman can't go to a baseball game with her family without it provoking foul and childish reactions from people for whom it is none fo their business. She might like to conduct the affairs of Alaska efficiently while pursuing other political activities, but the attacks have become a hindrance to the state and to her and her family personally.

I doubt that the loudest critics on this list could stand or tolerate the excoriation that they and their ilk seem to think appropriate for "stupid" Sarah Palin.

I remember something Todd Palin said last year when she was selected which struck me as very interesting. It can be taken the wrong way, but if you get his gist it says there is more there than meets the eye. He said (words to the effect) "She [Sarah] isn't wired normal." It was clearly not said critically.

I would trust the man who knows her best.

And I wonder if she isn't a pretty quick study. Maybe she also doesn't want a serious crisis to go to waste. Maybe she sees the US heading into the tank pretty fast and sees an opportunity to do things she thought she could not do before. And this is the way to start doing it.; 7/4/09, 11:46 PM
JAL said...: And if you want to look at a governor open to ethics violations, Mike Easley, former governor of North Carolina, makes Palin a pee wee league player.

So where are the Dems on Easley?

Three monkeys.; 7/4/09, 11:48 PM
Sprezzatura said...: JAL, a nine twelver?

I hope conservatives make Beck their new Limbaugh. That would be awesome. The only thing better would be Palin as the new W.; 7/4/09, 11:52 PM
Jim said...: Beth -

"Jim, the team of McCain and Palin wasn't a winner. I don't regret not voting for them. This recent decision on her part makes me quite comfortable with that decision.

Despite that, I wish I'd had a better choice on the Democratic ticket. Things can be complicated that way."

Given what I've seen of your politics, I'm going to guess that there was very little short of a lightning bolt striking you as rode to Damascus would have convinced you to vote for a Republican presidential ticket in any case.

If that's the case, then the honest answer is that short of being the personification of earthly perfection was ever going to convince to vote for Palin anyway.

So why try to make your objection anything other than what it is: pure partisanship?

Obama's choice of intellectual weakling Biden foretold both his inability to deal with a strong 2nd-in-command and incredibly poor judgment in a replacement should the unthinkable happen.

All of this vitriol from the Left (not you personally) is based on nothing more than the fact that she energized the conservative base which scared the hell out of Leftist partisans who thought it was going to be a cakewalk to the White House. Her entry into the 2008 race changed that dynamic dramatically, and the evident panic set in.

The volume and content of their attacks on Palin have always telegraphed the level of fear because there's no actual, rational basis for it. Every criticism levelled at Palin can be made at twice the volume if redirected toward Biden and/or Obama himself. Experience, intellectual curiosity, etc., all redound to either a clear edge to Palin or to, at worst, a draw.; 7/4/09, 11:55 PM
Jim said...: 1jpb -

"She's an unfortunate uber-victim of the evil librul media."

Your pathetic attempt at insults aside, Palin's not a victim of the media. She was and is the target of an organized slander and defamation campaign directed by David Axelrod through his AstroTurfing company on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama himself.

It lets Obama off the hook to lay the blame at the feet of the bloggers who only took the insinuations and half-truths that Axelrod emailed them the day of her selection and spread them far and wide for the gullible masses such as yourself.

That you have swallowed them whole isn't a sign of either your sophistication or superior intellect, so your sneering condescension toward conservatives is a compensating narcissistic trait that you really need to get under control. It's both unbecoming and quite revealing at the same time.

Try again. But this time, try to remember that every single thing Palin said about Obama during the campaign has been proven true while he's lived up to exactly zero promises he made during the campaign and broken more than a few. If you're looking for dangerously stupid, look in the mirror before sitting down to the keyboard next time.; 7/5/09, 12:03 AM
Beth said...: Jim, she may have energized the base, but to win, either party has to do more. And you're ignoring that Palin garners attacks from the GOP as well - the left doesn't have to worry about her, not now.

It appears that Palin appeals very, very deeply to a core. Others aren't so enthusiastic. To go further, she's going to have to break through that ambivalence (at best) enough to overcome the overtly hostile. McCain/Palin didn't lose because people like me - who just aren't going to vote GOP for the national ticket - didn't support them. They didn't get their own voters out, and they didn't win the moderates. I don't see how you can blame that on the evil liberals.; 7/5/09, 12:05 AM
Beth said...: Don't know anything about the NC governor; I expect the citizens of NC to handle him. I'd expect the same of Alaska, and of my state and the other 47. Unless there are federal issues, then by all means, let's see an FBI investigation.; 7/5/09, 12:06 AM
traditionalguy said...: Synova...another military idiom that sure does apply to Palin's point of view towards the Lib Media's assault on her is, "The poor bastards have us surrounded". And the more she stands up against their best incoming attack memes, the more they will be demanding her surrender and the more they will get the famous answer, "Nuts!" And as a famous general said to hearing that answer to a surrender demand, "Any man/woman that eloquent needs to be saved". The punditocracy from Goldberg to Krauthammer are simply not aware of the fighting ability in her that is right in front of their faces.; 7/5/09, 12:07 AM
Sprezzatura said...: Jim,

You hit the nail on the head. More (please, please, please, please) of that stuff about how things were unfair for Palin.

Could you expand?

Please, I beg you, continue telling us how Palin has been abused. Your insight are gold!!!

BTW, have you been following Beck. Please don't miss a single episode on the tube or the the radio. That guy is the best leader for the oppressed conservatives.

Nine-twelve and Palin 2012 all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 7/5/09, 12:11 AM
Sprezzatura said...: And, JTP all the way, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 7/5/09, 12:14 AM
Beth said...: Obama's choice of intellectual weakling Biden foretold both his inability to deal with a strong 2nd-in-command and incredibly poor judgment in a replacement should the unthinkable happen.

So you're saying the 2008 election was a mirror? Just change the names and you have the other ticket. Maybe "the unthinkable" was the deciding factor for some; they trusted the Secret Service to protect the younger guy, but didn't have faith in medical science in case McCain had an unfortunate setback at his age. This is all hindsight, and not worth a damn, of course.; 7/5/09, 12:20 AM
Jim said...: Beth -

"It appears that Palin appeals very, very deeply to a core. Others aren't so enthusiastic."

She currently has a 73% approval rating with Republicans - higher than any other national level Republican including Romney and Huckabee. So while those might make for good talking points, they bear very little relation to reality.

"To go further, she's going to have to break through that ambivalence (at best) enough to overcome the overtly hostile."

The "overtly hostile" are no different than the hostilities between the Clinton and Obama camps pre-general election in 2008. One camp anonymously snipes at the other, but in the end, the party unites behind its chosen candidate and closes ranks. So again, you're not talking about anything different than that faced by any other candidate and with her initial high approval start point, she is going to have fewer difficulties than most.

"McCain/Palin didn't lose because people like me - who just aren't going to vote GOP for the national ticket - didn't support them."

I never claimed they did. What I did do is read your posts which implied that there was a shot you were ever going to vote for the ticket but for the shortcomings of Palin or that you were trying to be objective in any way about her.

The truth is that you were never going to vote for Palin, and you are self-justifying why that is. Your cart is before the horse in your posts, and I just wanted to set the record straight that you weren't exactly being forthcoming in the reality of where your sympathies laid in the 2008 election. You were never inclined to give Palin a fair shot, and it's not unfair to point that out.

"They didn't get their own voters out, and they didn't win the moderates."

I've repeatedly stated on this blog that the fault for the loss of McCain-Palin lies squarely with McCain's strained relationship with the Republican base. I'll restate again that 7 million conservatives stayed home: in large part due to McCain's stance on cap-and-trade, taxing employee health benefits, amnesty and other issues. None of those things are Palin's fault. In addition, conservatives (and moderates) were extremely unhappy with the "Democrat-Lite" version of the Republican party which seems to have taken hold in Washington, DC. After all, if there's no real difference between the spending of a Republican and a Democrat, then why not give the other guy a chance? [People are finding out now why not, and that's why Independents are split heavily against Obama and the Democratic party agenda in all the polling - and that's before unemployment inevitably passes 10% on its way to 11%.]; 7/5/09, 12:20 AM
Beth said...: Jim, my posts don't imply anything of the sort. When I say I'm relieved we're not watching her bail on the vice presidency, I'm simply saying I'm glad the election turned out as it did. I even added that I wish there'd been a better Democrat to support, so where you get the idea I implied I'd have voted for McCain if only this or that, I just don't know. It ain't there. I've never indicated that in any way, in any post, ever.; 7/5/09, 12:28 AM
Jim said...: Beth -

"So you're saying the 2008 election was a mirror? Just change the names and you have the other ticket."

Hardly. What I'm saying is that every justification you've given for supporting Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin is less than honest. [Not in a malicious way, but in a "not forthcoming" kind of way.]

The reality is that you support the policies of the Democratic Party (by and large, if not in every specific), and your vote for their ticket was a purely ideological one. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's inherently less than honest to claim it was for any other reason.

Every criticism not based on ideology that you have leveled at Palin could equally have been turned around on either Obama or Biden or both of them. So looking at your arguments rationally, they fall completely apart. Your ideological prejudices are leading you to make criticisms that logic just can't support.

You have an emotional/irrational objection to Palin [that's not a personal criticism: we all engage in irrationalisms - it's just a matter of recognizing the difference between a rational argument and an irrational one], and I think it would be a more honest line of argument for you to say:

"I just don't like her politics, so I'm not willing to overlook any perceived failings she might share with my preferred candidates while simultaneously overlooking those exact same failings in my own candidates because that's what feels right to me."; 7/5/09, 12:31 AM
Jim said...: Beth -

"When I say I'm relieved we're not watching her bail on the vice presidency"

Because there's no rational reason to believe that she would ever have bailed on the vice presidency, that's why.

Is there a higher office to which she would aspire which would detract from her duties as vice president? No.

Would she have been subjected to the same abuse of the ethics process as a vice president? No.

Rather than take her at her word regarding her resignation: that the systematic abuse of the ethics process by the Democratic Party was making it impossible for the business of the state of Alaska to be done, you are imputing to her rationales which simply aren't in the public record.

You are speculating without cause, and without consideration to her past history. This isn't a woman who runs from a fight, so assuming that she was "run out of office" is quite frankly, wishful thinking at best and self-deception at worst.; 7/5/09, 12:37 AM
Beth said...: Jim, you're apparently conducting an argument with me that I'm not actually participating in. I'm not re-running the 2008 election. I'm simply relieved that Palin isn't the VP right now, due to this latest episode.

I made a little joke about how both parties had a perception problem with the idea of the VP replacing the POTUS. Where on earth do you find an "emotional" and "irrational" argument in that joke?

Get off the soapbox - or at least go rant at someone else.; 7/5/09, 12:39 AM
Beth said...: Jim, I'm making a judgment that in leaving office with 17 months left, she's not showing leadership. I'm glad we can see that lack of leadership now, rather than in the VPs office. I have no reason to believe that something else - bad press, other political attacks, who knows what else - might not bring out the same kind of decision.

You're a fanboy - good for you. I'm not, so I'm not going to put the heroic spin on her decision that you find necessary. I don't do it even with politicians I vote for. I'm not that kind of voter.; 7/5/09, 12:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Jim: I agree that the continuing attacks on Palin bespeak fear, but I think the bottom line is that they have worked: Despite what some conservatives believe, I'm convinced that her resignation now ensures that she will never again be electable.

The take-away message for her opponents is that the attacks succeeded. She is gone from electoral politics. She may return somewhere in the media. She may be a great spokeswoman for conservative causes. She may do well financially. But this resignation spells the end of any ambitions she may still hold for office after the latter-day Borking she has gotten.

The message that Borking works is a terrible one for our political system. I say this as someone who is NOT a conservative, but a middle-of-the-road traditional Democrat. But, being a wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader, I hold to the old-fashioned notions that political opposition should be on political grounds and decided at the ballot box.

Speaking of Borking, I was opposed to the original Bork, but I thought a straightforward opposition based on his extensively documented legal philosophy should have been enough. And if the Senate and the public couldn't be convinced on that basis, well, maybe he should have been appointed, his opponents having lost the debate.

But no, we were treated then and several times since to the disgusting spectacle of the politics of personal destruction on a national level, Sarah Palin being only the latest example.

I know, she isn't "destroyed," being too tough for that, etc. But the fact is that she has had "to pass the ball," in her own words, by a "full-court press." And, as I've said above, I am very willing to accept her explanation at face value.

And I disagree with Beth that her resignation shows that she lacks leadership. She has simply been put in an untenable position by an unscrupulous attack machine. You might say she might have anticipated this, but, frankly, I see nothing she could have done, save proclaim her unstinting support for Obama and all his policies, that could have held it off.

Call me old-fashioned. Call me naive, but I think these kinds of miserable campaigns eat, like acid on stone, at the foundations of our political life. I know I am depressed and disgusted this 4th of July, wondering what will lead us out of this crumbling mess.

Maybe Republicans Borking back might do it. Maybe Sarah Palin suing everyone in sight would help. But I really doubt it.

What old Joe Welch asked of McCarthy should be asked of every politician now, especially those on the Left, who seem, unlike in those old McCarthy days they'll never let us forget, to be those who chiefly have no decency.

But politicians are reflective of the people who choose and elect them. If they are lacking decency, what does that say, then, about the prospects of those of us who put them there?; 7/5/09, 12:53 AM
Jim said...: The reality here is that abusing the ethics process was a strategic blunder by the Left.

If they had simply ignored her, she would have been forced to serve out her term as governor in a remote, already-red state with little ability to influence the national political scene. She would have lost precious organization time and the opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the 2010 elections.

But now the Left has given her the perfect excuse to leave that post: the systematic disruption of the state of Alaska's government for petty, partisan sniping. It reinforces the image of Democrats as intrinsically corrupt, back-stabbing, power-hungry, and willing to go to any lengths to win.

As columnists have already noted, they have given Sarah Palin a "story." A cause for a populace already wary of the power being accumulated by government at all levels to harass and intimidate citizens by manipulating the levers of power to serve their political whims.

She can harness the power of the 1,500 TEA parties held across the country over the 4th of July weekend immediately: the fear of the abuse of governmental power is a driving force behind those grassroots protests. And the Left just made her a poster child for every complaint they are voicing.

It's was a short-sighted mistake in a short-sighted attempt to get back at Palin personally. The mistake the Left made is not realizing that Palin is a better chess player than the typical Republican politician. In chess parlance, the Left exposed its queen and Palin just captured it with a pawn.

She gave up the remainder of a term as governor in which she was unlikely to achieve more major achievements in a state that will likely go Republican in the next election cycle no matter who the candidate is. In exchange, she now has the freedom to strike back at her most virulent attackers without the constraints of being a sitting public official, to begin setting up a national organization, and to position herself as a major GOP power player in the upcoming elections.

It was a bold masterstroke, and only those who are heavily invested in believing that she is a backward and ignorant country bumpkin can't see that - and that includes those sniping from within the ranks of the Republican party.

If you can't see this for yourself, then perhaps learning how to play chess should be next on your list of things to do.; 7/5/09, 12:54 AM
Jim said...: Theo -

"Jim: I agree that the continuing attacks on Palin bespeak fear, but I think the bottom line is that they have worked: Despite what some conservatives believe, I'm convinced that her resignation now ensures that she will never again be electable."

I'd be interested in hearing if your thinking on the subject changes at all based on the post I made following yours.; 7/5/09, 12:56 AM
Sprezzatura said...: Theo (and all conservatives),

Please listen to the wise analysis of Jim.

That guy knows his stuff.

Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!!!

And, please follow Beck and Joe the Plumber to help take back America from the commie, black liberationist, non-constitution respecters w/o American birth certificates who hang out w/ terrorists.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 7/5/09, 1:09 AM
JAL said...: Beth writes re Easley in NC:
Unless there are federal issues, then by all means, let's see an FBI investigation.

Here ya go:

Investigation of Easley's dealings heats up
Related Stories
* Board of Elections steps up Easley investigation
* N.C. State provost resigns over Easley hiring
* Easley campaign paid for vehicle feds are investigating

FBI subpoenas Easley's travel records

Posted: May. 15, 2009

Raleigh, N.C. — The FBI on Friday subpoenaed state Highway Patrol records on former Gov. Mike Easley's travel while in office.

The move shows a federal investigation is building into Easley's dealings with friends and contributors during his two terms as governor.

The Highway Patrol, which provides security for the governor, turned over Easley's travel records to the State Board of Elections on Thursday.

The elections board on Friday closed its file on Easley to the public, indicating that officials had formally begun a criminal investigation of his campaign finances.

Federal agents served the patrol with a subpoena at 9 a.m. Friday requesting similar information regarding Easley's travel on private aircraft.

Easley couldn't be reached Friday for comment. {snip}
============================

And the charges against Palin were in-state or Federal? Just asking -- I don't know.

The issue isn't comparing sins, btw, it's the disproportionate response, aka hypocrisy on the part of many on the left. As well as punitive process at taxpayers' and a citizen's expense.

Three monkeys.; 7/5/09, 1:11 AM
Anonymous said...: 1jbp: I am NOT a conservative, But you ARE an idiot.

Jim: You make good points about how this steaming pile stinks, and how some of it might stick to Democrats, but my own admittedly cloudy crystal ball (to violently mix metaphors) says that the semi-martydom of Sara Palin will not increase her popularity with enough voters to elect her to national office in the future. It might make her more popular among her base, but I don't see her holding national office again.

And, as I've said above, she may be tough and clever, but one of her appeals is that she is NOT a non-organic life form, unlike many of those who seek the Presidency. So it looks like she may have simply been worn out by the attack machine, family considerations playing a large part as well.

So who knows where this is going? I am not a "fanboy," but I did think she was an interesting and refreshing voice that deserved to be heard. Now that she's out of office, maybe we'll hear more from her, and I and many others will get a chance to develop more informed opinions.

Vote for her? I dunno.; 7/5/09, 1:14 AM
JAL said...: Actually it's only Two Monkeys.; 7/5/09, 1:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry. Strike the "again" in my previous comment. Palin has never held national office, so she couldn't hold it again.; 7/5/09, 1:17 AM
Jim said...: Beth -

"Jim, I'm making a judgment that in leaving office with 17 months left, she's not showing leadership."

Your analysis of the situation only holds water if you assume that the only possible reason for her leaving office is because she just couldn't take the heat any more - and there's no proof or even indication of that other than your own prejudices.

If you watched her press conference, there was no "I need time away from the public eye" type of statement that would typically be associated with that sort of thinking. Instead, she talked about continuing to fight for her principles by supporting candidates who shared them. Does that strike you as someone who is slinking away with her tail between her legs or someone who is moving on to bigger and better things?

As far as lack of leadership, I would contend that you need to examine the real-world implications of her decision. A good start would be to read my post above about playing chess while the Democrats were, in essence, playing checkers.

Let's continue that thought: By resigning now, she has hand-picked her successor and given him a chance to develop an independent record of success heading into the 2010 election cycle. In short, by resigning now, she ensured that she will likely have an ally who "owes her" in the governor's mansion during a potential 2012 run rather than one of the "good ole boys" who so despise her for having taken away their bag of goodies.

You can call that "lack of leadership" if you want, but: a) that doesn't make it so, and b) shows a lack of strategic political thinking on your part.

"You're a fanboy - good for you."

I'm not a fanboy. I don't necessarily think that she will ultimately prove to be the strongest candidate for Republicans in 2012. There's a lot of time between now and then for other candidates to emerge on the national scene.

However, unlike some on this board, I'm also not willing to think that a woman who scratched and clawed her way out of anonymity to being named as the vice presidential candidate on a national ticket is a backwards idiot either. Much of the posting on this and other threads starts with the assumption that she is being willingly led around on a leash and is incapable of independent thought.

Just look at the abuse heaped on her because she didn't go to an Ivy League: as if that means anything other than not being willing or able to overpay for the ability to say you went to a prestigious school. I've seen what the Ivy League produces, and I'm not as easily impressed by a Harvard degree as some here so evidently are. Do the words "grade inflation" mean anything to you? If not, then you don't know anything about the reality of Ivy League schools at all.

But back to my point, I start with the assumption that a person (man or woman) who has demonstated that kind of savvy and ability is at least as capable as I am in being able to figure out the pros and cons of a given situation. All I've done is follow the logical consequences of her actions to their logical ends.

It goes back to what I mentioned in a previous post about your irrationality where Palin is concerned. Your opinion is colored by your ideology and your presumption that, because she is weak, she folded rather than assuming that she is strong and is playing a better hand.

Your dismissal of my analysis of the situation as being that of a "fanboy" is irrational partisan posturing. I challenge you to look at my reasoning and find reasonable fault with it, why it is not a more plausible explanation than the one you posit. That is to say, if you are even willing to put aside your partisanship to engage in such an exercise objectively and on a purely rational basis.

I would contend it is you who is a party "fangirl." I'm just looking at the facts.; 7/5/09, 1:19 AM
Beth said...: JAL, is Easley running for national office? If he does, this will have a much broader audience. Not a very apt comparison. I don't know anyone who keeps up with what's going on with the 50 governors.; 7/5/09, 1:23 AM
Jim said...: Theo -

"It might make her more popular among her base, but I don't see her holding national office again."

Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the economy continues its current trajectory, and that the consensus of economists is correct that - even if the economy is recovering by 2012 - that it will be doing so only weakly and be primarily "jobless."

Assume also, that Obama's performance on the international stage doesn't yield any better results than it has so far.

Assume also, that the Democratic Congress continues to insist on passing legislation that raises taxes and massive new regulations.

Given this not unlikely combination of factors, do you assume that Obama's approval ratings are going to be above or below 40%? How many independents or moderate Democrats are going to turn out for Obama? How enthusiastic is his base going to be compared to 2008?

Compare this to the likely energy of the Republican base and the likelihood that moderates and independents will be begging for any alternative at all to another term of Obamanomics and inept foreign policy.

Give Palin 3.5 years to engage on the issues at a national level, and think about how many people will revise their current opinion of her. [Keep in mind that in October she was 42/48 negative and this month was polling 45/44 positive after gaining +6 with Democrats and +7 with Independents during six months of unrelenting attacks from the Left.]

[Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton has extremely high negatives as well, and if not for the strategic error of ignoring the Democratic caucus states which allowed Obama to build up an insurmountable lead, would have captured the Democratic nomination even with all the accumulated star power of Obama, and that there is no parallel for such a backroad into the Republican nomination.]

Also assume that Palin uses her star power to raise money for Republican candidates and campaigns in key races across the country during the 2010 elections which results in the Republicans either re-taking the House or at least significantly increasing their numbers. [Again, keeping in mind that 49 Congressional districts carried by McCain-Palin in 2008 are now represented by Democratis House members and that it only takes 40 seats for the Republicans to retake the House.]

Given all of these things, I would theorize two things:

1) That almost anyone the Republicans nominate has a better than even chance of beating Obama just based on political momentum.
2) That Palin stands at least a decent chance of being that nominee.

So I know a lot of people are writing her off, but they do so at the peril of looking back to this weekend and wondering just how they got it so wrong.; 7/5/09, 1:34 AM
Beth said...: Your analysis of the situation only holds water if you assume that the only possible reason for her leaving office is because she just couldn't take the heat any more - and there's no proof or even indication of that other than your own prejudices.

No, that's what I've been hearing from her defenders, including you, when you're not changing track and arguing she's making a play for higher office.

You'd be a lot more credible, Jim, if you layed off the continual personal characterizations of my "emotional" and "irrational" and "prejudiced" motives.

Her speech struck me as someone who's trading something that isn't appealing anymore for something else. That's bailing, in my judgment. But we're all speculating right now, because no one actually knows what she will do next. Once she makes a move, we'll speculate some more.

As for strategy, did the voters elect her to set up the next governor, or to serve a term? I don't know; that's up to Alaskans. My judgment is that I expect the people holding office to serve that office, not their party's next goal. The governor of a state isn't the governor of the party they belong to. They serve the entire citizenry. It may be very, very shrewd strategy. Is it honorable? Does it show leadership on issues important to the citizens of her state, or to Republican voters of her state? Right now, her decision is raising questions, and not all of them automatically make her look like a good, sound public servant.

I've not called her backwards, I've questioned her judgment and at this point, I see this move as showing her to be someone I'm glad isn't holding national office.

I've responded to your argument, rationally, and I've not disguised or misrepresented my political views, not in this thread or in any other on this blog. Your continual use of terms such as prejudiced, irrational and emotional in describing my speculation and discussion here show you to be dishonest. Shame on you.; 7/5/09, 1:39 AM
Synova said...: The voters of Alaska didn't hire her to cost them 2 million dollars in six months on lawsuits either.

The thing is... this *is* bad for her. Staying in office but not running for reelection would be much better, both if she wants to retire from the public view and/or if she wants to seek national office. Staying in office and running for reelection would probably be better yet if she wants to seek national office because she gets to campaign more. (I'm with those who say people should quit first, just like getting a divorce *before* finding someone new.)

Maybe she did actually decide that none of it was worth it and quit for her family.

But if it's not... I don't think that we're going to find out what she has in mind until August... not when she can't wear a jacket with a logo, take a picture with a fish, or talk to a reporter in her governor's office without someone filing a suit.

I don't think it's an accident at all that she gave her speech on her very own private property.; 7/5/09, 2:09 AM
Jim said...: Beth -

"No, that's what I've been hearing from her defenders, including you, when you're not changing track and arguing she's making a play for higher office."

Show me where I said she's resigning because she couldn't take the heat. There's a difference between stating the facts of the situation and saying that I thought she was incapable of handling it. I've never said she wasn't capable of handling it: what I have said is that she's found a better way to handle it. You're trying to spin what I said into something I didn't, so your entire argument falls down in the first instance.

"You'd be a lot more credible, Jim, if you layed off the continual personal characterizations of my "emotional" and "irrational" and "prejudiced" motives. "

Since your arguments fall down if they're analyzed rationally and logically, that leaves emotion and irrationality. Combined with your own stated prejudices regarding her politics, I fail to see how I am wrong simply because you don't like what that means.

"Her speech struck me as someone who's trading something that isn't appealing anymore for something else. That's bailing, in my judgment. "

If you mean trading being the junior senator from Illinois for being president of the United States is "bailing." You see what I mean about your illogic? Obama didn't do anything different. He took a job. Did it for 2 years. Then he decided that it wasn't appealing any more and decided to run for president. Huh. How about that? Coward.

This is what I'm talking about with your "emotion" and "irrationality." Your argument isn't an argument because it makes no sense at all. She's not doing anything different than Obama did: the only difference is that you already know what Obama's new job is. You have no idea if Palin's new job will be better than being governor of Alaska, but you've already decided - based on nothing more than your own prejudices - that it can't possibly be better, therefore, you call it "bailing." It makes no sense at all.

"My judgment is that I expect the people holding office to serve that office, not their party's next goal."

So I guess I missed the part where you said that Obama was a coward and bailed out on the state of Illinois. Or would that require too much logical consistency for your taste?

"I've questioned her judgment and at this point, I see this move as showing her to be someone I'm glad isn't holding national office."

So I guess you'll be glad to show me where you made a similar condemnation of Obama's judgment for lacking leadership?

"Your continual use of terms such as prejudiced, irrational and emotional in describing my speculation and discussion here show you to be dishonest. Shame on you."

First, I never said that made you a bad person or implied anything negative about you as a person. In fact, I think very highly of you as you always seem to hold your beliefs sincerely unlike many here who are more interested in scoring points than hashing out differences.

Second, irrationality isn't a perjorative. Love is irrational. Hate is also irrational. All feelings almost always are. As human beings, we convince ourselves that our irrationality always takes a back seat to our logic; but the truth is that's often not the case. I honestly believe that you are arguing for something in one case (Palin) while denying that the exact same set of facts logically requires you to form a radically different conclusion about another than you do (Obama). That's irrational. That's emotional.; 7/5/09, 2:17 AM
Jim said...: contd.

That I have cited your ideological preferences as the basis for this irrationality, again, is not a slam or insult. It's the logical conclusion unless you are harboring some deep personal animus towards Palin and a personal affection for Obama. So, like it or not, I'm actually giving you credit for not being a reflexive "Palin-hater" by saying that I believe it is simply a matter of political prejudice rather than personally motivated.

You can say "shame on me" all you like, but the fact remains that you have yet to refute the logic behind my argument. So if I'm supposed to be ashmed of that, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing why.; 7/5/09, 2:17 AM
Jim said...: Synova -

"The thing is... this *is* bad for her. Staying in office but not running for reelection would be much better, both if she wants to retire from the public view and/or if she wants to seek national office. Staying in office and running for reelection would probably be better yet if she wants to seek national office because she gets to campaign more. (I'm with those who say people should quit first, just like getting a divorce *before* finding someone new.)"

I would agree that it appears this way if all politics ended in July 2009. But the upcoming "main event" is the 2010 midterm elections. If she had stayed in office, she would have had little to no voice in those elections while her primary opponents would be able to curry favors with sitting Republicans by taking an active role. Add to that, the impossibility of building a national campaign starting after those elections while her opponents already have a headstart on her with national organizations already in place.

As I said in a previous post, if Palin helps deliver the House in 2010 then no one will care if she left office early and she'll actually have reversed the dynamic: her opponents will be chasing her rather than vice versa. If she fails to have a significant impact on the 2010 races, then she was never going to be a legitimate contender in 2012 anyway in which case she didn't lose anything by resigning office now anyway.

It's a win-win for her.; 7/5/09, 2:22 AM
Mark said...: I would agree that it appears this way if all politics ended in July 2009. But the upcoming "main event" is the 2010 midterm elections. If she had stayed in office, she would have had little to no voice in those elections while her primary opponents would be able to curry favors with sitting Republicans by taking an active role.

Yes. She's a proven draw for the base, and independents find her entertaining and her personal story fascinating. In the meantime, she'll get to do as many local news shows as she wants, and no one here has yet uttered the magic words "speaking fees" which, while she can't expect Slick Willy numbers, probably won't be chicken feed either.

I like her. I'm not counting her out.; 7/5/09, 2:38 AM
Paul said...: "As I said in a previous post, if Palin helps deliver the House in 2010 then no one will care if she left office early and she'll actually have reversed the dynamic: her opponents will be chasing her rather than vice versa. If she fails to have a significant impact on the 2010 races, then she was never going to be a legitimate contender in 2012 anyway in which case she didn't lose anything by resigning office now anyway."

Bingo. Jim nails it.; 7/5/09, 3:23 AM
Beth said...: Jim, you offer some very strange uses of the words "irrational" and "prejudice" and so on. You seem to use "prejudice" interchangeably with preference, or position; that's odd, and I suspect your intention is to push buttons. Now that I understand your vocabulary is eccentric, I'll just ignore it. You clearly mean to be a bit patronizing and disingenuous and I'm foolish to rise to the bait.

Any constituent would be justified in complaining about their representative or senator running for another office - but it happens all the time during presidential election cycles. Palin's situation isn't exactly parallel to that - there is no upcoming election that would require her to step down before her term ends. Had McCain won, she'd have given up the governorship. Doing so after that election, with no other election on the horizon, is odd, and there's nothing irrational or prejudiced about questioning what it says about her judgment and leadership.

All the assertions that she's leaving because of the ethics complaints boil down to she can't take the heat. You use the passive construction that the attacks are making it "impossible for the business of the state of Alaska to be done" - that's avoiding an actor, namely Palin. From my perspective, and I'm hardly alone is arguing this, that looks bad for her. It does indicate she's leaving that behind because it's a struggle. I predict that will harm her if she pursues higher office. She may surmount it. She might succeed in making the case that she was unfairly driven from office, but she's going to have to contend with the image of having not been up to the task. You predict one outcome; Theo predicts another. I think the whole thing is a tossup right now. We're all speculating.

But if it makes you feel better, I'll bow to your awesome rationality. I don't know why any of us are even talking about this, when you've nailed down the facts and have the future mapped out. Oh the peril (!) of thinking otherwise.; 7/5/09, 3:35 AM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/5/09, 3:35 AM
Beth said...: It's a win-win for her.

We obviously have different ideas about what leadership means. That looks a lot like self-interest.; 7/5/09, 3:38 AM
OhioAnne said...: Beth,

Thank goodness you didn't descend into launching a personal attack as you have accused everyone who disagreed with you of doing. Everyone should consider "fanboy" a compliment of the highest order. ;-D

I do agree with you on this, however.

This is all hindsight, and not worth a damn, of course.

The only person who truly KNOWS the reasons is Palin. That makes everything said by everyone else - including you, Jim, and me - not worth a damn.; 7/5/09, 6:58 AM
traditionalguy said...: I will never understand what women want. But I can easily figure out why Michael Jackson's finale in the media which was being used to pre-empt news of the Dems slaughter of America with their pending Cap and Trade and Socialized Health Care bills has suddenly been pre-empted itself. Why it's only because a useless and lame duck Governor in a tiny ( by population) state is not going to finish her term and thereby screw the people of such an important State. That cannot be because the Lords of the Media are sweating blood over this Governor's power to expose their Supreme Leader as a fool like the wizard of Oz was exposed. You Go dorothy/Sarah.; 7/5/09, 8:07 AM
JAL said...: Right now Palin isn't running for national office, is she?

Easley was on the list for possible VP early on. Makes me think some of the dogs sniffed out some possible problems, while they they sat on Edwards' lies.

Two monkeys.; 7/5/09, 8:48 PM