Longtime readers may recall that I was initially positive about Sarah Palin because her record was much more libertarian than that of most other major national politicians. Later, I had to reassess my view of Palin, as her ignorance of many important policy issues became apparent. But I also emphasized that ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity, and that in my view Palin suffers from the former, not the latter — a conclusion also reached by liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. I do a lot of research on political ignorance, and the distinction between ignorance and stupidity is one that I have often urged people to keep in mind. For reasons that I discuss here and here, even professional politicians often find it rational to devote their time to activities other than learning about major national issues.
Still, an ignorant but intelligent person is capable of remedying her ignorance to a greater extent than one who is both ignorant and stupid. In reading Palin’s recent memoir, Going Rogue, I wanted to see if there was any evidence that she has taken steps to address what many people see as her biggest weakness — myself included. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to say either way. As a sympathetic WSJ reviewer points out, the book devotes little attention to national policy issues. Palin does come across as knowledgeable about Alaska state issues, but her facility in that area was never seriously in question.
The book argues at length that the various gaffes that revealed Palin’s ignorance during the 2008 campaign were mostly the fault of McCain’s consultants and a biased media. I remain unpersuaded. Yes, many people in the media were biased against Palin, and perhaps the consultants made mistakes (it’s hard for me to assess that claim without knowing more about the consultants’ side of the story). Even so, there is no excuse for Palin’s inability to give competent answers to relatively simple questions about such things as which newspapers and magazines she read, which Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, or describing the basics of her position on US policy towards Russia. If Katie Couric really was out to get Palin, as the book suggests, she could surely have asked tougher questions than these. In any event, a candidate facing a biased media should be all the more careful to avoid obvious mistakes.
More proof is needed before we can conclude that Palin has achieved the level of proficiency with national policy issues that can reasonably be expected from a president of the United States. To say this is not to suggest that Palin is stupid or contemptible. To the contrary, I think that she is a charismatic and capable politician, and no less intelligent than most other political leaders. Her meteoric rise from obscurity to governor of a state is certainly impressive. I just don’t believe that Palin has proven herself to be qualified for the job of president of the United States, or for being within a heartbeat away from that position. More importantly, the Republican Party should be able to do better than nominate a person lacking in basic relevant knowledge. I don’t think it’s too much to expect the party to find a presidential candidate who is simultaneously charismatic, committed to free markets and limited government, and knowledgeable enough to understand the basics of major national policy issues. If the Republicans really can’t find a single viable candidate who meets all three of these requirements, then they have a serious problem that goes far beyond the shortcomings of one Sarah Palin.
ShelbyC says:
What I’ve read from you on political ignorance (mostly just blog posts) there doesn’t seem to be much reason for Palin, or any other politician, to remedy their ignorance. I’d imagine that most elected officials are fairly ignorant of the issues.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:32 pmIlya Somin says:
What I’ve read from you on political ignorance (mostly just blog posts) there doesn’t seem to be much reason for Palin, or any other politician, to remedy their ignorance. I’d imagine that most elected officials are fairly ignorant of the issues.
There is not much electoral incentive for them to do so. But that doesn’t mean their ignorance isn’t a matter of serious concern. Moreover, I think most serious presidential candidates could at least answr the sorts of basic questions that Palin flubbed in 2008, though of course many are probably ignorant if probed much beyond the basics.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:36 pmPhaedrus says:
I think Palin can probably spell “answer”
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:44 pmChrisTS says:
IS:
I appreciate your not-entirely-partisan thinking (otherwise known as intellectual honesty).
I suspect there are different kinds of ‘unintelligence,’ just as there are varying types of ‘intelligence.’ Palin might be quite bright and clever in many ways.
But, does she have the kinds of intelligence desirable* in a national leader? Is she a critical thinker? Is she willing and able to pursue difficult problems with the depth of thinking they require? Is she capable of/inclined to sustained, precise thinking?
More generally: is she open to ideas beyond an ideological stance, susceptible to rational argument, willing to do the hard work of understanding complex issues?
*NB: I am not suggesting that all our national leaders DO have these capacities.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:47 pmCharlie B says:
You would think Sarah Palin could name all 57 states, but apparently she can’t.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:52 pmConstantin says:
I think this is probably right, and applies similarly to Barack Obama, though I don’t think either is particularly intelligent. (The “he’s so smart” meme is second only to “Michelle’s so glamorous” in Obama-related absurdity.)
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:59 pmgeokstr says:
Let’s also keep in mind, that, unlike a lot of the major pols in the lower 48, she had not been campaigning for the next higher office as soon as she was sworn into the current one. People like the Clintons and Obama had been aiming for the presidency from very early on in their political careers, and were therefore grooming themselves (and in Obama’s case, being groomed) for the position for a long time.
Palin, from everything I’ve read, had no such lofty ambitions, and got to where she is by seeing a problem at the next higher level and then fighting to fix it. She then purposefully acquired all the knowledge she found necessary to achieve her goals and actually be good whatever position she was in. She apparently didn’t aspire to national office until McCain picked her for her maverick style and to rally the conservative base.
To me that kind of record is admirable. She made herself an expert in energy policy when she needed to. What exactly is it again that Obama is expert at? Oh, yes, teleprompter reading.
After spending 30 years in corporate American in very prestigious companies, I am well-acquainted with the style of many executives who basically never bother to learn to do the responsibilities they already have. Instead they immediately begin campaigning full-time for their next promotion. (Sound like any POTUS we know?) Many successfully make a career out of being exceptionally good at nothing more than getting promoted. They had perfected their skills at networking and being interviewed, much like the Clintons and Obama.
Personally, I’d much prefer someone who has the intelligence and the motivation to master the job they already have and get promoted based on that. Obama met the level of his Peter Principle around the time he was a community organizer, and has been promoted since then on nothing more than being an “African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”, to quote the VP.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:06 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Yawn. Back in 1978 Prof. Somin would, like so many other conservative intellectuals, have written this column about dumb and clueless Ronald Reagan. Academics tend to overestimate intelligence, education, and policy expertise, while underestimating most of the things that make for a good executive, like temperament, focus, decisiveness, vision, interpersonal skills, the ability to delegate, and a thick skin.
Hence Buckley’s famous line about being governed by the Harvard faculty.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:06 pmSandy MacHoots says:
On these criteria, Wilson, Hoover, Carter, and Clinton should have been much more effective presidents than FDR, LBJ, and Reagan.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:17 pmRicardo says:
Palin was promoted by conservative elites like William Kristol starting about two years ago. Indeed, she was hand-picked by the McCain campaign to be the VP candidate — it’s not as if some spontaneous grass-roots political movement came out of nowhere to put her in the position she is in today.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:17 pmjab says:
“like temperament, focus, decisiveness, vision, interpersonal skills, the ability to delegate, and a thick skin”
LOL... you think Sarah Palin has these traits?
focus: quitting the governorship of alaska
vision: drill, baby, drill
thick skin: whining about big bad media and fighting with 19 year old Levi
i’m just amazed how intelligent conservatives and libertarians are still
enthralled with Palin... you still got the “starbursts” in your eyes?
did you all freakin watch the Katie Couric interview?
Call a spade a spade... this woman is a moron, and the Republican party should and must do better.
The supposed worship of Barack “The One” Obama by his supporters pales in comparison
to the the outright worship of the Palinites.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:23 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Ricardo.
I don’t think Palin was reading up on Kristol-supplied syllabi, although you may have information to the contrary. To say she was picked by Kristol means only that he noticed her.
Nobody denies she was picked by McCain. (Is that different from being “hand-picked”?)
Being picked, hand-or-not, does not equip one instantly with information necessary to satisfy Ricardo.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:26 pmflyovertard says:
Jab,
Moron is as Moron does.
If I was stranded on the highest mountain, the driest desert, the densest jungle, or the most crimified city;
I would place my life in Palins hands over Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Gore, Bush II, Obama; Dole, Edwards, HR Clinton, Gore, etc.
Who would you trust your life to???
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:31 pmflyovertard says:
And I don’t even think she would make a good president.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:32 pmBill Poser says:
The reason that the Republican party has such difficulty finding candidates with your list of desiderata is not that such people do not exist but that the party contains several constituencies unified by little other than the fact that they don’t like the Democrats. One part of the party, roughly the libertarian wing plus the “traditional conservatives”, is against big government and, especially the former, in favor of civil liberties, but the social conservatives/religious right are not favorable to civil liberties, and the corporate kleptocratic wing is not opposed to big government. No candidate with a clear policy agenda can satisfy all factions, so there is a lot of thrashing around and excessive attention to people who are charismatic but vague enough on their policy positions to avoid turning off major groups within the party.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:34 pmjab says:
flyover...
That says way more about you than about any of those politicians.
As I said... and people complain about Obama worship? LOL
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:36 pmRicardo says:
Richard, maybe you missed the point but I was responding to the notion that Obama was “groomed” as a Presidential candidate. That’s true and it is equally undeniable that Kristol promoted Palin among conservative elites and Republican operatives as someone who should be on the national stage. The main reason Palin is a national figure today is the efforts of elites like Kristol.
I wouldn’t go so far to say she was groomed for the simple reason that her performance in the campaign was too inept — she was picked and promoted by Republican apparatchiks but not at all prepared for what was to come. The notion that she is somehow more authentic or less beholden to the elite than Obama, however, relies on a false narrative.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:38 pmbearcat says:
The book is mostly a personal memoir and score settling (justified in my view) with Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt and the mainstream media. I expect that if she is serious about a national political career, there will be another book dealing with policy issues. (Kind of like Obama’s Dreams/Audacity pair.) If the Wall Street Journal is to be believed (and no one had contradicted it to my knowledge), she gave a serious, thoughtful and wide-ranging speech on a number of policy issues to a group of investors in Hong Kong. No recordings were permitted but the WSJ ran a detailed summary of it in September. I expect there may be more of this after the book tour.
Between the condescension from the right and the outright derangement (see jab comments above) from the left, I am surprised that the woman is still viable on the national scene. But like some other successful politicians, she has been underestimated all the way up the line.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:44 pmjab says:
bearcat...
derangement on the left?
pot. meet kettle.
the right’s ODS has pretty much managed to make the bushitler crowd seem somewhat tame...
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:49 pmB.D. says:
Great, another Palin thread.
Palin has charisma . . . and what else? I guess she’s intelligent enough to be a decent president, but that’s not saying much. Her grasp of national issues is laughable. Her skin is thin. She inexplicably quit her job mid-term. And, yes, her family is trashy.
If Mitt Romney weren’t Mormon, would we even be entertaining the thought of Palin or Huckabee or any of the other jokesters vying for the 2012 nomination?
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:53 pmRichard Allen says:
There is another needed, and sorely lacking, intellectual trait for politicians-lack of arrogance. You can be intelligent and well informed and it is all useless if you are unwilling to listen to and consider contrary opinions.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:54 pmEricPWJohnson says:
Lets see the argument is that Palins still ignorant.....
As I see it everything is more accurate if expressed compartatively since for conservatives the goal posts seem to shrink to less than the avg football width....
So to be totally unfair — to bring up other recent events
Didnt Carter graduate from the Naval Academy with a degree in Nuclear Physics, grow a small country farm into a multi-million dollar agri-business, and run for governor and President, and would have had two terms if it were not for the Iranians?
And we know how Carter turned out now didnt we? Then America has been recently “blessed” with a college professor, an Constitutional Law Professor — that has no fundamental understanding of that instrument and its effect, and we have another example of an Nobel Prize winning Economist that cannot understand why free trade is sooo effective over socialism in the distribution of wealth.
Yet lets slap the hockey mom around some more — its the “right” thing to do
So what if the public in the worst recession in decades in shelling 25 for a book everyone “hates” so much they just ordered another 100,000 copies!
Quote
November 21, 2009, 10:58 pmbearcat says:
I don’t think Romney’s Mormonism was the problem. His most significant problem was that he went from being a moderate governor of Massachusetts to a conservative presidential candidate, and then expected no one to notice the change. That may work in a general election, but it tends to cause problems with the people who vote in primaries.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:01 pmjab says:
No one is “slapping the hockey mom around.” Talk about cult of victimology.
She CHOSE to put herself out there with this book...
She CHOSE to run for (and QUIT) the governorship of Alaska.
She CHOSE to run for V.P.
She is choosing to remain in the political spotlight by actively campaigning for the teabag crowd
and she is choosing to keep herself in the running as a possible candidate for President in 2012.
Oh, but in her “thin-skinned” mind (and apparently you agree),
legitimate criticism of her pathetic lack of credentials is “slapping around” the poor, innocent hockey mom...
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:06 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Obama is smart (as his LSAT scores demonstrate) but he’s a lazy, ignorant, ditherer. If he can win, she can win. It’s all packaging.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:11 pmbearcat says:
Those tests are mostly an indication that one is good at taking tests. Even so, I wasn’t aware that Obama’s results were ever publicized. What did he score? My understanding is that neither his grades nor any of his written work product has ever been made public.
I don’t doubt that Obama is intelligent, in any case. And I wouldn’t say he is lazy. He only seems to be indecisive in areas he doesn’t care about. Such as national security.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:31 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
The “ignorance”/“stupidity” dichotomy is relevant in many instances, but not here. A smart person who acts stupid might as well be stupid. The fact that Sarah Palin has traveled this far in her political career without gaining proficiency in certain areas of knowledge and policy shows greater flaws than can be excused by “oh well she’s rough around the edges, but give some time to read up.”
Spare me. The woman does nothing but regurgitate conservative talking points, and does so arrogantly and goofy. A prominent conservative friend of mine readily admits that she should be nowhere near the White House, but benignly excuses her away as “conservative cheerleader”. That’s exactly what she is and the fact that she tries to portray her cheerleading as serious politics is a sick joke.
Of course hacks like Bernard Goldberg cart out moronic arguments like “liberals hate her because she has 5 kids and one is special needs”. Don’t worry Bern, that slack-jawed and contrived Fargo-esque accent is more than enough to make me hate her.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:37 pmJaimeInTexas says:
I like Ms. Palin OK. I do not like Mr. Obama at all.
At least, Ms. Palin has Governor in her vitae. And, Mr. Obama? Community Organizer and uS Senator windbag?”
I think that Ms. Palin would not do any worse than past POTUSes.
Good golly, have y’all heard some of Mr. Obama’s bumbling, fumbling and rambling “responses?”
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:42 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Reread the post. I wasn’t saying anything about Palin. I was commenting on a particular criticism of Palin by a particular kind of conservative.
But since you ask, she obviously has a powerful vision of what she thinks America ought to be, which resonates with a lot of people. Her actions as governor and since the election suggest that she’s reasonably decisive. She’s showed quite a bit of political skill in the way she’s handled herself since the election loss, controlling her exposure the same way Obama’s handlers did last year. Her favorables compare pretty well with the President’s at this point. Quitting her job doesn’t suggest she lacks “focus”; it’s just as plausible that giving up the governor’s job allows her to focus on playing a role in national politics. Her skin is certainly thicker than Pelosi’s or Obama’s (Biden’s skin appears to be as bulletproof as his skull), but it’s hard to tell if it’s thick enough to be a successful president. Can she delegate? Well, I haven’t heard that micromanagement was one of her flaws as governor.
Right now I’d say she’s probably a much stronger executive than Obama, Biden, or Pelosi. That’s not saying much, of course. Hillary is stronger in some areas, but she lacks Palin’s charisma and she can’t really articulate a vision of what America ought to be, other than that it ought to have her as president. We’ll see where Palin is when 2012 comes around.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:43 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Ricardo. I got part of what you said. That Kristol noticed her amounted to “grooming”. The part I didn’t get was any evidence of grooming.
You’ll note that Obama won three elections by getting his opponents to quit–two with illegally unsealed divorce papers and one by challenging signatures. You can’t do that without help, and having a columnist notice you from afar isn’t going to do it.
My question is whether Palin was thinking about the national stage before McCain picked her, or before there were sub rosa queries.
If not, then her “ignorance” is excusable. She had other things on her plate.
I’ve known, and know, people who are extremely competent and knowledgable in their field, whatever it is. They are ignorant in other fields roughly in proportion to the extent they are terrific in their own. I caveat that to say that most really bright people have a good grasp of one avocation.
The real generalist is sometimes known as a dilettante and needs an independent income.
I think the issue with politicians is character. There are two reasons for that. One is that they have staffs and a reasonable IQ and can study up on what’s happening, if necessary. The other is that we expect them to handle what hasn’t been foreseen, and character is more important in predicting their responses than is their knowledge base in something else.
I would make an analogy with the military. Everybody gets the same training. What they do with it depends on who they are.
Example: When my father earned his Silver Star, it was while his platoon was supporting a rifle company whose headquarters had been destroyed, leaving him the only officer on the scene. Except for one. This guy had been overwhelmed and had simply checked out of the war. Sitting in a basement room reading a magazine–in German–by a flashlight.
They had had the same training at Benning. One reacted one way, one another.
I don’t think their scores on tactical exams back at the Infantry school could have foretold the difference.
BTW. What’s wrong wit “drill, baby, drill”? We are, it turns out, financing some offshore drilling near Brazil.
So offshore drilling isn’t the poison the anti-Palinuts have been making it out to be.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:43 pmKazinski says:
I think there are probably a lot better potential GOP presidents out there than Palin, I’m not sure there are better candidates. Romney and Huckabee are non-starters for me. Romney because he is from the accommodationist wing of the party, see Romneycare. Huckabee because he is clueless, and while a social conservative, not really a fiscal one, or believer in free markets. So that really leaves just Palin as a possibility from the last cycles big names.
I’d like to see someone with a fiscal background like John Kasich or Mitch Daniels. I don’t know if Bobby Jindal is ready for such a step up.
But 2012 will take care of itself, what conservatives need to do is focus on 2010 so we can stop this hell-train before it does much more damage.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:45 pmCounterfactual says:
Ronald Reagan showed many times he had the intelligence, education, and policy expertise to discuss policy issues well. For example, he guested on ‘Meet the Press’ seven times before becoming President, starting in 1966 with his first run for governor. Sarah Palin chose not to even when it was the best avenue open to her to prove she was not the dunce the liberals were saying. It is not the liberals who proved that Sarah Palin is incapable of intelligently discussing issues outside of hand-picked friendly interviewers. She proved that herself by ducking the chance to do so in forums that every other candidate for high office (yes, even the conservative ones) has welcomed. When someone consistently passes on what are real chances to show she is not ignorant or stupid, there comes a point when you have to begin to suspect what the real reason is.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:53 pmbyomtov says:
we have another example of an Nobel Prize winning Economist that cannot understand why free trade is sooo effective over socialism in the distribution of wealth.
No one can understand this because, as worded, it is meaningless. If your claim is that Paul Krugman — that’s who I presume you mean — doesn’t understand the benefits of markets then it is blindingly stupid and ignorant.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:54 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Great point. Good leaders know how to listen to people who know more than they do. That was one of Reagan’s great strengths. From her interviews Palin doesn’t seem to be nearly as full of herself as the average politician. That’s probably part of her charm. She uses “I” a lot less than the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:54 pmSandy MacHoots says:
This isn’t true. In 1980 the depiction of Reagan by the Democrats and the national media veered between senile laughing-stock and frightening ignoramus. He was the leading Republican candidate, supported by all the right wing wackos, but we were told incessantly that he couldn’t win. The Republicans had to find a non-scary candidate who could appeal to intellectuals and moderates, like Bush or Ford or John Anderson. Oddly, he won quite convincingly. After he won he was the “Acting President,” too stupid to even read his own speeches and so locked in intellectual blinkers that his view of foreign affairs was “USSR = Evil Empire.”
Only after Reagan won every state except Minnesota in 1984 did the “dangerous idiot” theme give way to the “Great Communicator.” Sure, he was still dumb and ignorant and narrow-minded, but now at least he was a very good talker.
Only after the bumbling of the Bush I and Clinton Administrations did Democrats and the media start conceding that maybe Reagan actually had some good qualities. Now, to hear them talk, he was an intelligent, thoughtful moderate like, say, John McCain, not one of those dangerous conservatives who will inevitably lead the GOP into the outer darkness.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:15 amsecond history says:
Regarding President Obama’s decisionmaking:
I think ChrisTS has identified the attributes of the President’s decisionmaking style. He is asking the critical questions, and listening to contrary viewpoints concerning an extremely complex issue. He is not going to uncritically accept his military commanders advice (which may or may not be correct), unlike the previous administration which gave it free rein. While some may like “shoot first, ask questions later” bumper sticker policies, they are usually the worst actions one can take.
The questions that need to be asked are will the policy work, how long will it take, and what are the odds of success. These are the questions that weren’t asked in 1964, 1968, or 2003, to the great detreimint of the United States.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:29 amrpt says:
Factual question: Has Palin ever had an interview with someone who challenged her on substantive matters? I think both Gibson and Couric were pretty weak questioners. If so, how did she do?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:33 ambadlaw says:
Liberals always say this as if the contention is people have picked some random woman off the street to start mocking and calling her stupid. Yes, we know she deigned to hold office, aspire for the VP slot, and wrote a book. I was unaware that this broke some kind of mold (since it seems very much like the mold), but the point is, the level of ire for Palin combined with the carping that she hasn’t done anything — mostly from the same people — is confusing. It’s doubled by the fact that we just elected someone largely on their rhetorical ability and ability to rally their base (even if you like Obama, you know this is true) more than their dense, stellar resume. So when people level these kinds of attacks at Palin who, worst case scenario (for liberals), would’ve been in the thoroughly boring position of VP, it’s hard not to note the double standard.
For the record, I’m no Sarah Palin fan, but I don’t hate her, either. I don’t even sorta/kinda dislike her. I’ve heard more about Sarah Palin than I’ve heard from Sarah Palin, and I’m including all her interviews over the past week. Interesting how the liberal MSM can’t stop obsessing about her, but somehow she’s the raging egomaniac who needs to get over herself.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:38 amKazinski says:
Factual question: Has
PalinObama ever had an interview with someone who challengedherhim on substantive matters? I think both Gibson and Couric were pretty weak questioners. If so, how didshe do?Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:39 amrpt says:
Kaz:
Can you answer your own question? Who cares what Obama has done in a thread about Palin?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:52 ameyesay says:
Ilya Somin wrote, “Her meteoric rise from obscurity to governor of a state is certainly impressive.”
I hope you are equally impressed by Obama’s meteoric rise, although I for one would never use the oxymoron “meteoric rise.”
Ilya Somin wrote, “I don’t think it’s too much to expect the [Republican] party to find a presidential candidate who is ... committed to ... limited government....”
“Limited government” is a GOP talking point, but it is not a true GOP objective. Republicans love big government when it’s locking people up for using recreational drugs, or restricting a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy or a teenager’s right to end her pregnancy without discussing it with her parents. Republicans love to spent the taxpayer’s money when it’s for war, but not for giving the poor a hand up. The worst big government program of the past decade was the war in Iraq against a country that had no responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and was never a threat to our national security.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:35 ameyesay says:
Order of the Coif wrote “Obama is smart (as his LSAT scores demonstrate) but he’s a lazy, ignorant, ditherer.”
What you call “dithering” I call “coming to decisions after listening to all interested parties.” That is how a community organizer sees the world, in contrast to President George W. Bush, whose governing was “my way or the highway.”
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:43 ambbbeard says:
I’m sorry, but since when is one’s choice of newspaper “a major national policy issue”? Personally, I’m disgusted with Korematsu v United States, but does that rise to the level of “major national policy issue”?
I have yet to find a current politician, including the current President, who can express a clear, realistic policy toward Russia. “Reset Button”? Puh-leeze....
BBB
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:48 amjab says:
bbbeard, is this what you had in mind:
Palin:
“Well, it certainly does because our ... our next-door neighbors are foreign countries ... It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is — from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to ... to our state.”
Ha ha ha ha... hilarious.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:52 amRelic says:
Nonsense. He’s had plenty of time to his decision, and pretending that he’s measuring his options does not make it so. His choices are 1) a strategy based off of using small teams, drone strikes, and offshore attacks to take out key enemy positions and 2) a strategy of territory capture, protection, and gradual expansion. The former uses fewer troops but has a horrible track record. The latter uses more troops and comes with a better chance of success, but is likely to result in many more casualties. He picked the latter, and is now hemming and hawing over how many troops he should send. It would have been simpler, smarter, and quicker to weigh his options the first month and, given what he eventually chose, approved the original request.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:54 amLeo Marvin says:
Please keep saying Palin is as smart as Obama, and his intelligence is a figment of the liberal imagination. If America believes that, we deserve the consequences.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:07 amMalvolio says:
Might I remind you it’s late freakin’ November. Does Mr. Obama intend to listen to every interested parties individually? Afghanistan is a complex issue, but it isn’t a surprise. He had seven years to think about and 10 months as president to “listen” to whomever and so far, nothing. He’s starting to make Hamlet look like a meth addict.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:42 amRich Rostrom says:
“a presidential candidate who is simultaneously charismatic, committed to free markets and limited government, and knowledgeable enough to understand the basics of major national policy issues. If the Republicans really can’t find a single viable candidate who meets all three of these requirements, then they have a serious problem that goes far beyond the shortcomings of one Sarah Palin.”
You left out a few other requirements:
Is honest in personal finances, including achieving sufficient income without exploiting political influence.
Is not a drunkard, doper, gambler, or skirt-chaser.
Has no invidious prejudices.
Has sufficient previous success in some important job to be plausibly considered able to carry out the duties of the President.
Has some previous record of success as a political candidate.
Is in good health, and has no personal difficulties likely to disrupt a campaign or administration (such as a troubled marriage).
Besides which, in the present political system, parties do not find candidates. There is no Republican search committee. Candidates must declare themselves, after which the party leadership and primary voters decide which ones they like. And a candidate choosing to seek a nomination needs a lot of resources and makes an enormous personal commitment; few people are willing or able to do that.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:37 amDuffy Pratt says:
OK, let’s see who met these criteria since I’ve been alive:
Nixon — Not a believer in free markets or limited government
Goldwater — Maybe, but charisma is a question given the outcome
Nixon x2 — see above
Ford — didn’t believe that Poland was under Soviet domination, not big on limited government
Reagan
Bush I — not committed to limited government or free markets
Dole — Charisma challenged
Bush 2 — not committed to limited government or free markets, questionable on basic policy issues
McCain — not committed to limited government
So, why do you expect these qualities as a baseline??? Which of the potential candidates met all three criteria in any election cycle in the last 40 years, but failed to get the nomination?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:57 amresh says:
Everyone here, including the geniuses, who’s run a state as governor, please raise your hand.
That’s what I thought...
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:31 amIbhola Lethu says:
resh:
One does not need to be a baker to say that the bread is stale.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:21 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Regarding this business of “she QUIT the governorship:” Didn’t Hillary QUIT the Senate? What sort of person turns her back on a job she contracted to do for a set number of years, just because a more prestigious job is offered? And do we want that sort of person to be president? Come to think of it, Obama, Biden....
Just agitatin’. ;^)
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:28 amJoe says:
Regarding this business of “she QUIT the governorship:” Didn’t Hillary QUIT the Senate?
This doesn’t really sound serious, but given this thread, one never knows. Resigning to take another position offered by the President or to run for higher office is a long time accepted thing. This includes resigning from the Supreme Court (John Jay, Charles Evan Hughes).
I’m unsure how this is comparable to resigning a governorship for the better “office” of giving speeches and such.
BTW, going back to that post where he first supported the pick, one of the first comments concerned an Alaska related Supreme Court case which Palin opposed. I can see her not knowing Koresmatsu, but hey, how about a fairly important local case she spoke about in the recent past?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:08 amJoe says:
simultaneously charismatic, committed to free markets and limited government
Hard to recall the last successful candidate they had that did truly believe in those things. Not sure the drug war, opposing sexual freedom of gays and others, increasing the deficit, aggressive foreign policy that expands government, etc. fits the last one. B41 wasn’t really that charismatic either. As to free markets, seems many of them support a lot of special perks that aren’t really supportive of that.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:15 amJonathan Rubinstein says:
It is a silly debate. Palin is anything but stupid. Ignorant she is which is one reason she is deeply loved. The country is sick of law schools, the Ivy League and sophisticated presidents who have been total failures for decades. Get real ladies and gentlemen.
The educated elites have brought this on ourselves. By the way, Palin is not running for President. Only the silly broads who are jealous of her are running her. She is aiming to replace Oprah as the Queen, become a billionaire, and lead the populist revolt from Fox. Watch. Enjoy yourselves. And tell me, how are you enjoying President Obama’s apprenticeship? Should last three years.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:16 amRichard Aubrey says:
It apparently needs to be repeated that Palin’s position as governor made her vulnerable to bankruptcy from bogus lawsuits.
Which were being consistently filed with the intent of bankrupting her.
I suggest the next time some lawyer has some time on his hands, he try that with a dem governor. But don’t take aspirin from strangers.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:21 amJaynie59 says:
Here is yet another example of a “pundit” calling Palin “ignorant” of the issues but failing to give specific examples of exactly what policy or policies she is so “ignorant” about. The article linked to in this post simply points to another post describing her “ignorance” of policy as being well documented “elsewhere” with no need to repeat them.
Uh? Yeah, you do need to repeat them. I’ve read just about every word written about Palin since she was nominated and I have yet to read a specific criticism of a single thing she has actually said about anything. From Mary Katherine Hamm to Steven Crowder to Charles Krauthammer (to name just a few) all of the people who say she needs to work on her policy bonifides don’t ever say why, or what, she has said that is so wrong or “ignorant”.
All of it always ends up being about her Katie Couric interview and her refusal to answer two easy questions. If giving a bad interview ended a political career there wouldn’t be a politician left. (Not that that would be a bad thing).
Her resignation as Governor has been explained very clearly. The fact that so many conservatives cannot understand plain English is their problem and not hers. If they don’t understand why she resigned by now they never will and they are the ones to need to remedy that situation. They are guilty of willful stupidity, which is worst than ignorance.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:47 amRichard Aubrey says:
Jaynie.
It’s not willful ignorance. They know better. They are hoping somebody doesn’t and can be convinced.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:55 amShelbyC says:
Easy there resh. Just because she was governor doesn’t mean she’s ignorant or stupid. You’re thinking in generalities.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:11 amwolfefan says:
Hi Richard Aubrey —
I don’t get it — she couldn’t write the book (or supervise the ghostwriter) and do interviews while she was governor? Plenty of other politicians have managed to do so. After all, she found time to run for VP while she was governor.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:22 amjcm says:
She is not Potus ‚so what. The real Potus know nothing about economy or foreign politics
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:33 amFlash Gordon says:
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Somin. The sausage factory of politics won’t produce the sort of person you wish for. And if the Republican party is in trouble on that score, how can the Democrat party even exist?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:40 amRicardo says:
Americans are so sick of the Ivy League and law schools that they just elected a Harvard Law graduate who used to lecture at University of Chicago’s law school.
But I’m sure you can’t imagine how Obama won. After all, maybe like Pauline Kael no one you know voted for him.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:46 amT. Gracchus says:
I wonder about her libertarian credentials. Alaska, after all, is the most socialist of the states and has the greatest reliance on federal subsidies. Wouldn’t she need to advocate privatization of resources to qualify as having libertarian inclinations, and at least advocate reduction (leading to elimination) of federal subsidies?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:49 amepignosis says:
Few would argue that Albert Einstein dispayed some genius for arriving at good answers concerning a physical description of the universe. His political views, however, were nearly worthless.
Better to be able to discern a good answer from the universe of ideas than to be considered knowledgeable or intellectual while continually be deceived by ideas that lack efficacy.
It is the quality of discernment that we seek, coupled with principled norms and standards for decision. If Palin has that, she is far ahead of many who are presently on the political stage.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:49 amtamerlane says:
Let’s see how many of the attacks on Palin in this thread can be applied (based now on bitter experience) to the Obamessiah:
Etc., etc. Before Obama worshippers post, maybe they should check whether their critiques of Palin don’t have even more bite when applied to their messiah.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:04 amjab says:
I love this thread... Palin certainly has Obama beat in one respect...
the unwavering, irrational, fanatical worship of her supporters...
from the posts in this thread, you get the impression that her sycophants believe she is the
wisest person on the planet with supernatural political skills...
shoot, you even got one claiming he would willing put his life in her hands... just wow.
please, pretty please, let her be the nominee in 2012.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:13 ambadlaw says:
Why is it that rabid criticism of Palin is just lucid analysis of a woman who might could one day run for President, but people chiming in saying “eh, she’s not that bad” is “unwavering, irrational, fanatical worship”? Who’s worshipping her here?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:20 amBT says:
jab please, you continue to remark that Palin’s devotees are irrational, fanatical, etc,. I have no idea where you live or the types of people that you come into contact with but as a resident of the north side of Chicago and a political minority here (a conservative) I can tell you that Obama Worship was and is extraordinarily high here. You want fanaticism? Listen to the Milt Rosenberg show on WGN radio, just prior to the election where he had the temerity to question BO’s qualifications to be president. Listen to the name calling, implied threats and the black and white world view of the enlightened darlings that supported our president and called in to the show. It remains to be seen whether that level of devotion to Palin nears the high water mark (or low water mark) set by Obama.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:43 amRichard Aubrey says:
wolfefan.
You don’t get it. Everybody knows about the threatened bankruptcy she was facing ($500,000 in legal bills) for which she was not allowed to use state money.
Since everybody knows it, why are you pretending you never heard of it?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:08 pmfda says:
eyesay,
what were Obama’s LSAT scores? We know that he got into HLS but do we know his LSAT scores? I had not seen those before.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:29 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Richard Aubrey, wolfefan’s grasp of fact is, um, tactical. He’s not alone in this, of course.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:31 pmSkyler says:
What a snobbish post. I guess unless you’re a law professor, then you have no part of the political debate in this country.
Right and wrong are what’s at stake here. We now have one of the most corrupt administrations in our nation’s history, run by extreme socialists and communists and you’re worried that one of the messengers of the opposition isn’t as smart as you’d like her to be?
What does that matter? She need not be Aristotle, she only needs to understand right and wrong and be willing to expose the corruption and lies (from both parties).
Would she make a good president? I don’t know, but probably not. But she’s sounding the alarm at what’s going on when there are no others of any stature that are doing so – neither republican, libertarian, nor martian.
There’s no need to take swings at her. She hasn’t declared for the presidency and there is no campaign at this time. What she’s doing is trying to influence the public debate to more common sense, and she appears to be having a big impact in favor of mostly libertarian supportable ideas.
And for that reason, I think she deserves some thanks, not posts insultingly titled “Ignorance and Stupidity.”
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:32 pmRandy says:
Geok:“She made herself an expert in energy policy when she needed to.”
That’s highly debatable. She has declared herself to be an expert and wrote one letter to the editor of the Washington Post. Most real energy experts thought it was silly, wrong, shallow, or all three. IF you have any actual proof that she is expert (beyond drill baby drill), please show it.
Jaynie59: ” I’ve read just about every word written about Palin since she was nominated and I have yet to read a specific criticism of a single thing she has actually said about anything.”
Then you obviously haven’t read Andrew Sullivan’s blog, whereby he has been keeping track of her demonstrable lies. He finds statements of hers that can be proven by objective facts to be untrue. Some are major, such as her claiming that she was never in favor of the bridge to nowhere and rejected the money, and some are minor, such as saying that she consulted with her daughters before accepting the offer from McCain. You can find them here.
His point, and I think it’s a valid one, is that of course many politicians lie, but Palin is different. She lies about things that really are of no consequence — she just makes stuff up on the fly. And contrary to people’s insistence that the ‘media’ or ‘liberal elite’ are out to get her, no one is calling her on the carpet about these lies. She has been given a free ride from everyone about these lies. If she can lie so breezily about just about anything, what sort of president would she make? Certainly not a good one, despite any other qualifications she may possess.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:35 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Incidentally, shouldn’t we debate the desirability of intelligence in politicians before we worry about its presence in Palin? Most of the senior Nazis were pretty brainy — IQs between 130–140, according to testing after the war — but spent a lot of time when they should have been efficiently running the country trying to cut each other off at the knees. They had a few moral failings, too.
I know, I know, “necessary but not sufficient.” But what’s the necessary amount and what weaknesses does it excuse?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:49 pmRandy says:
Part of the debate boils down to this issue:
Would we be better off with a intelligent president who has all the wrong policies, or a stupid or ignorant president who has all the right policies?
Supporters of Palin argue the latter, supporters of Obama argue the former, with the caveat that his policies may not be wrong afterall.
When we vote for president, there is no one criteria by which we judge a candidate. Remember how so many people voted for W in 1999 because they felt they could have a beer with him? He seemed so much more a man of the people than stiff Al Gore. Look how that turned out.
And so many people want to have an opportunity to vote for Palin because, again, she is one of the people, and understands their issues. As for what she actually stands for, well, that’s hard to parse — she has flipped and flopped so often that it’s really difficult for anyone to say what she actually stands for. Indeed, on this entire thread, virtually no one has been able to articulate her position on anything, other than drilling for oil. Remember, she was in favor of stimulus bailout, and is now against it. She doesn’t want money from the feds except when she accepts it on behalf of Alaska. She’s in favor of traditional marriage except that she allowed her daughter to have sex in her house and remains unmarried today. She complains that Levi should be a better father but fights him on getting any custody.
Personally, I don’t think she stands for anything at all except what sounds good at the moment. That’s not something that will serve our country well if she actually had a position of responsibility.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:52 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Randy.
Missed again.
Palin’s supporters do not consider her stupid and ignorant.
You–surprise–misrepresented their position.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:57 pmConstantin says:
He’s not released them (or his SAT score), which is probably all the proof we need that he didn’t do so hot. He didn’t graduate from Columbia with any honors (no transcript released from there, either), and conceded during his time at HLS that he was an affirmative action admit.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:57 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Did Palin declare herself expert in energy?
In what fields has Obama declared himself expert? Is there any reason to believe him?
Perhaps there should be a different question. Is there any field in which Obama has allowed his followers to think he is not expert?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:59 pmRandy says:
Richard: “Palin’s supporters do not consider her stupid and ignorant.
You–surprise–misrepresented their position.”
I guess you are correct. Sorry about that. But nonetheless I raise the question.
“Did Palin declare herself expert in energy?”
Yes, she did, in her editorial.
“In what fields has Obama declared himself expert?”
I don’t know, and so far as I know, he hasn’t. This is a thread on Palin. He does have a JD, so I would suspect that qualified him as fairly well educated, and more so than Palin. At this point, he certainly has more experience than Palin does by virtue of being President for 10 months. And furthermore, I’m not defending Obama, so it’s rather a straw man argument to ask what he is an expert on.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:08 pmEH says:
It seems plain from the comments that many of Palin’s supporters contend that Palin would be nothing without Obama. In fact to many, Palin exists as nothing other than a stick with which to beat Obama. Seriously, try praising Palin’s specifics without mentioning Obama. See if you can do it!
How about an aside: do you think Palin could beat Hillary in an election?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
“She complains that Levi should be a better father but fights him on getting any custody.”
Cite?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:21 pmSkyler says:
EH wrote:
Isn’t that enough? Why do we have to praise her as an individual? She’s doing a good job of highlighting what’s happening to us. She’s the one who derailed his socialist medical agenda. That’s reason enough to be thankful to her.
I need not want her to be president to be glad that she’s doing what she’s doing. I certainly don’t agree with all her opinions, but she talks a lot more sense than anyone in either major party that has any prominence.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:24 pmLeo Marvin says:
Why are you pretending you don’t get it that wolfefan’s suggestion (i.e., write the same book and get the same huge advance and royalties, without abandoning the governor’s office) disposes of that problem?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:32 pmjab says:
Skylar opined:
“We now have one of the most corrupt administrations in our nation’s history, run by extreme socialists and communists and you’re worried that one of the messengers of the opposition isn’t as smart as you’d like her to be?”
You mean socialism like this:
Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans “share in the wealth” generated by oil companies:
Palin:
“And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
I swear, you make it too easy... PLEASE nominate her... seriously...
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:34 pmSkyler says:
Jab, I didn’t say she was perfect, but if you’re going to have socialism in some form (and at this stage in our history we will) then I’d much rather it be in the form of distributing windfall profits from oil than in enslaving doctors and forcing us all to abide by government decisions on our medical fates.
Property is a bundle of rights. No one owns or controls the bundle of my right to my own decisions regarding my health. There is a case that the government can control who gets to own the property rights to oil buried deep beneath the surface of the earth in undefinable pockets that stretch far beyond most land ownership limits. It is arguable that to give the right to extract those oils to one or two parties is to create an unnatural concentration of wealth that has little regard for merit or real ownership. It’s reasonable, though some would disagree, that taxes be levied on such a property right and that the people share in the windfall. If the entity doing the drilling still makes a massive profit for the privilege of being allowed to drill, then that is somewhat reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with that, but it’s at least arguable.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:07 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Palin, Ignorance, and Stupidity Revisited -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law, Jason D. McClain. Jason D. McClain said: Sympathetic yet rational and critical review of Palin and Going Rogue ::: from the Volokh Conspiracy, natch. http://bit.ly/85Hd40 [...]
Matthew Bilinsky says:
Haha yes, the woman claims free market credentials by pointing out how she governed the state that disbursed the most collectivized revenue!!
Like most of those Obama critics claiming “socialism”, she wouldn’t be able to define the word if her life depended on it.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:12 pmRandy says:
Laura: ““She complains that Levi should be a better father but fights him on getting any custody.”
Cite?”
Levi has decided to file a this lawsuit to obtain custody because he says that Palin prevents him from seeing his daughter.
From Oprah’s interview: “Winfrey: What happens when he comes to see the baby?
Palin: He’s quite busy with his media tours. And he hasn’t seen the baby for a while. ”
Thereby implying that Levi cares more about media tours than seeing his son, which Levi himself disputes. Which is the reason for the lawsuit. One really shouldn’t prevent a father from trying to see his son and simultaneously complain that he isn’t seeing his son. But then, I guess I don’t have Palin’s morality.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
I watched O’Reilly interview Palin, which I admit was difficult for me because I can’t stand O’Reilly, and she still comes across as a Valley Girl. It’s true that the press was out to get her, but they had a pretty easy job. When you can’t tell a reporter what Supreme Court decisions you disagree with, or what you read, you come across as rube, which I think she is. Of course Obama got worshiped not interviewed.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:39 pmEH says:
Skyler:
Why do we have to praise her as an individual?
How about because that’s what this post is about? Otherwise, GYOFB.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:39 pmresh says:
“One does not need to be a baker to say that the bread is stale.”
Quite true. Then again, I’ll buy my bread from the baker; you can buy yours from the folks who runs a laundromat.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 2:49 pmSkyler says:
EH, that was a strange comment. So, you’re saying that anyone that disagrees with the post is not to comment?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:06 pmSkyler says:
Randy wrote,
That’s just intellectually dishonest.
Family law can be a nasty business, but the purpose of getting involved in family court is because there are differences of opinion on what should happen with parenting children.
Here we have the all-too-common complaint that dad isn’t being a good father being objected to by the father that the mother is preventing access. This is as old as family law and to conclude anything from the complaints alone is impossible. That’s why we have courts, to settle these messes as best as possible.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:10 pmstevefromscranton says:
Palin is a remarkably stupid, ignorant and dishonest person.
The fact that this wasn’t readily apparent to you months ago, doesn’t say much for your insight or reasoning.
You really are embarrassing yourself.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:33 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Leo.
As long as she’s governor, the suits continue.
You think we don’t get it.
Time, aggravation, and money, and done for no other reason than to punish an enemy of The Won.
Now they can’t do it, and she may even be able to countersue for defamation. That would be nice.
Don’t, by the way, say anything about legitimate grounds for a suit.
Other than that they are utterly unnecessary.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:34 pmsteve from scranton says:
“there is no excuse for Palin’s inability to give competent answers to relatively simple questions about such things as which newspapers and magazines she read, which Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, or describing the basics of her position on US policy towards Russia ...
More proof is needed before we can conclude that Palin has achieved the level of proficiency with national policy issues that can reasonably be expected from a president of the United States”.
I see, you realize that she can’t answer simple questions that a well-informed high-school student could answer, yet you believe that you just need some more “proof” that she is fit to be president?
I love that construction, by the way.
As in: “More proof is needed before we can conclude that Pol Pot had sufficiently dedicated himself to humanitarian work before we could conclude that he deserves the Rotary Club award.”
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:37 pmAllan Walstad says:
I just wonder, if Palin said all the same words but in the voice of, say, Henry Fonda, how much difference it would have made politically? Voice-wise, she’s on a par with Fran Fine in “The Nanny.” The sense of “gravitas” counts for a lot in politics.
I agree with some of the earlier commenters that there’s little reason to expect the Repubs to push candidates who are committed to free markets and limited government. Not until and unless there is a sufficient collapse and realignment. The neocons are being challenged, but they still seem to hold the power, unfortunately. It’s not clear to me yet that Palin offers much better on the issues.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:42 pmDangerMouse says:
Then you obviously haven’t read Andrew Sullivan’s blog, whereby he has been keeping track of her demonstrable lies. He finds statements of hers that can be proven by objective facts to be untrue.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Randy, you’ve beclowned yourself. Want an example of a “lie” that Sullivan has found? Read here
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:54 pmyankee says:
I guess you haven’t been reading carefully! Here are some examples.
Palin on the bailout:
She could barely generate a coherent response, and what she had to say was that TARP was about health care reform, tax relief, and job creation. None of that was true and it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
Palin on America:
In Palin’s view, small towns are “real America” and “pro-America,” leaving the rest of the nation as an anti-American fake America. When your conception of patriotism involves hating most of the country, you’re not a patriot.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:54 pmDangerMouse says:
Oh, and I suppose for the record I should mention, Randy, that if you’re a devoted beliver of Trig Trutherism, then don’t expect anyone to discuss things with you credibly. If you want to declare yourself to be certifiably insane, go ahead.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:55 pmLN says:
When Palin needs to defend herself from lawsuits, it’s because libtards are hateful.
When Obama needs to defend himself from lawsuits, it’s because he is willing to spend whatever it takes to prevent the truth from coming out.
Palin’s support seems to come from people who simultaneously believe that (a) they are self-reliant and fiercely independent and (b) the liberal elite really looks down on them and oh God how they have suffered. I never realized that the salt of the earth could be so whiny.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:57 pmSkyler says:
I think you have this a bit off. I think a lot of her supporters “wish” they were allowed to be more self-reliant without a nanny government controlling and directing them, and they feel that the liberal/socialist left looks down on them and is attempting to control even more of their lives than they already do.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:05 pmyankee says:
It’s completely justifiable! They’re being oh-so-oppressed by those degenerates who adulterate their coffee with steamed milk. Real Americans would never do such a thing.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:10 pmBT says:
Yankee, what about Obama’s San Francisco speech to the democrat royalty about all of the (and I am paraphrasing) hayseeds who cling to their guns and bibles in flyover country? That isn’t in your words, hating most of the country? As I mentioned in a post above, I live in Obama country and I can tell you that the contempt from most urbanites, particularly those with advanced degrees, for rural towns and peoples, is quite high. It also gets played out on the political stage here in Illinois as a Chicago vs Down
State split but that is a subject for another day. Yankee, while it may appear that I am playing “gotcha” what I am more interested in, is pointing out that most of the excesses that get thrown at the right, get just as much play from the left. Both sides do it.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:15 pmrpt says:
It is completely irrelevant whether you have seen his grades for anything. Stop changing the subject.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:21 pmrpt says:
It’s a little late for this argument.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:24 pmrpt says:
It’s definitional. There is Democratic “socialism” (restribution to lower middle class) and Republican/conservative “socialism” (restribution to wealthy and on occasion to win votes.) Only one kind is bad.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:33 pmRandy says:
Skylar: ” That’s why we have courts, to settle these messes as best as possible.”
Exactly. Which is why Palin shouldn’t be talking about this issue on national tv. Unless you are really going to argue that its okay for Palin to talk about these issues but not anyone else.
I don’t particularly care WHY she won’t let him near his son, and you are right that is for the courts, but that isn’t the issue here. The issue that I have with her is that she won’t let Levi have access to his son, but then she tries to smear Levi by implying that’s his choice. That is completely disingenuous.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:37 pmyankee says:
You are changing the subject. The fact that Obama did something does not excuse Palin. Tu quoque is called a fallacy for a reason.
Complaining about the small minority of urbanites with advanced degrees is an even sillier dodge. Most people have biases of one sort or another, but we should expect more from our political leaders, especially people like Palin who aspire to national office.
Also, what Obama actually said is:
Saying people “cling to guns or religion,” etc. is a far cry from declaring that they’re not part of “real America” and are not “pro-America.” Nor are small towns in Pennsylvania or the Midwest most of the country: most of the country consists of the cities and suburbs that Palin dismissed as fake America.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:37 pmRandy says:
“WAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Randy, you’ve beclowned yourself:
Okay, I’ll probably have to kill myself for responding to Dangermouse, but here is what Sullivan actually found:
In a meeting with Shimon Peres, she said: “I wanted to meet you for many years,” Ms. Palin told Mr. Peres, according to an aide to the president. “The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag,” she was quoted as saying, “and I want you to know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend.”
Sullivan then found a photo of her office, in which she has prominently displayed an American flag and an Alaskan flag. You can see the photo here
If you look very hard, you will see a tiny little flag off to the left. It’s one of those small desktop flags, one which no one would seriously call a real flag. (Except Palin, of course).
So: Either she was lying when she said that the Israeli flag is the “only” one in her office, or, she is too stupid to realize that she has an American and Alaskan flag in her office. In other words, Sullivan is correct. But don’t believe me, go look at the photograph yourself.
Now, one could say that this is a simple misstatement, hardly worth anything. One could argue that. But when you argue that Obama is stupid for misstating how many states there are in the Union, you really can’t have a double standard.
But don’t worry, Dangermouse, out of all the commentors here, I will give you leave to have a double standard. this way you won’t feel you have to argue anymore about it.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 4:52 pmLN says:
Part of being self-reliant and independent is carving out your own sphere of control, of being able to look out and take care of yourself even as you recognize that life isn’t 100% fair. Throwing temper tantrums and whining hysterically about how your parents don’t give you any freedom and how it’s totally not fair is not part of the picture, usually.
The Palin fan mindset relishes playing the role of the victim.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:01 pmdevoman says:
My way of thinking about Sarah Palin is to think of her competing with the other presidential candidates during the Republican primary debates. There she is, competing against Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, et al. How would she do? Would she emerge victorious? A close second?
If you think she would have done well (say in the top 5), tell us who you think would have been behind her.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:04 pmLeo Marvin says:
Please don’t discourage him. Most Americans are about as anxious to see Obama’s birth certificate and his LSAT scores as they are to watch my Bar Mitzvah video. The ODS revealed by RW’ers obsessed with these things is not lost on them.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:05 pmDangerMouse says:
Either she was lying when she said that the Israeli flag is the “only” one in her office, or, she is too stupid to realize that she has an American and Alaskan flag in her office. In other words, Sullivan is correct.
Or, you could realize that this is just as idiotic as someone saying that they wore jeans to Church and concluded that they showed up topless. Palin was obviously talking about foreign flags only, which is obvious to all who have not lost their common sense.
This is how libs use the word lie, by the way. Althouse’s commentors have a great discussion about that. They’ve been doing it so long that I doubt they recognize how absurd this is. It reminds me of Chesterton’s argument that an insane person is someone who has lost all common sense and retained ONLY his reason, which drives him to make the most absurd, but logically complete, arguments. Sullivan’s been Exhibit 1 of that for a long time now.
By the way, you never really answered this: are you a Trig Truther or not?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:07 pmCollege Student says:
Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.
Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=T4JLkCcNbd7TRexboclKxA_3d_3d
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:10 pmeyesay says:
Skyler wrote, “We now have one of the most corrupt administrations in our nation’s history, run by extreme socialists and communists....”
Corrupt?
In the Harding administration, we had the Teapot Dome scandal.
In the Nixon administration, we had the grain deal, wherein Clarence Palmby, an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture who became a vice president of Continental Grain Co. at far more than his $38,000 federal salary. This was part of the larger scandal in which the Nixon administration negotiated with the Brezhnev regime to sell U.S. wheat to the Soviet Union and substantial profit to (guess who) Continental Grain Co.
And in the Nixon administration, we had the carpet scandal, in which the carpet manufacturer’s association contributed big bucks to Nixon’s campaign, and the Nixon administration helped in return by delaying flame retardant standards for a year.
And in the Nixon administration, we had this matter of the Watergate scandal, which you may have heard of; it was such a big scandal that it has largely crowded out from public memory the dozens of of other Nixon administration scandals.
And in the Reagan administration, we had the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved sales of weapons to Iran in violation of federal law in order to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, also in violation of federal law. Ten administration officials were convicted, and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger avoided trial only because President George H. W. Bush pardoned him.
So please list Obama administration scandals that compare in any way to Harding’s Teapot Dome Scandal, Nixon’s grain scandal, Nixon’s carpet scandal, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, or Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal.
Extreme socialists and communists? not just socialists, not just communists, but extreme ones! Like Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, whose cell phone rings to the tune of the Internationale! And Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has an autographed picture of Gus Hall on his desk! And Energy Secretary Stephen Chu &mdash he used to head the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, so he’s redder than red!
Skyler wrote, “She’s [Sarah Palin is] the one who derailed his socialist medical agenda.”
OK, I’m glad to know that the the following countries all have socialist medical systems: Canada, France, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland, . . .
Skyler wrote, “... if you’re going to have socialism in some form (and at this stage in our history we will) then I’d much rather it be in the form of distributing windfall profits from oil than in enslaving doctors and forcing us all to abide by government decisions on our medical fates.”
After all, it’s not like any third parties such as insurance companies are currently forcing us to abide by their decisions on our medical fates. Thank goodness that never happens now.
Skyler, Hello? Health care reform as proposed by the Obama administration would not “enslave” anyone. Doctors will still be free to work for themselves, or medical partnerships, or corporations, and will not become government employees, let alone slaves.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:26 pmLeo Marvin says:
Richard, what has your mind reading skill told you this time about what I think you don’t get? Does it have anything to do with your continually changing the subject? You claimed Palin left office because the lawsuits threatened to bankrupt her. As wolfefan pointed out and I repeated, she could have obviated that concern with the same book windfall she’s getting now, without cutting and running from her elected responsibilities. In that case she’d have been just like a lot of other politicians, including a Democratic President or two, who have had to bear the considerable legal expense of being sued in office.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:36 pmSkyler says:
Randy wrote:
You’re really quite full of yourself today. Why are you assuming that what the father is saying is true?
I agree that Palin shouldn’t be commenting on it, it’s a lack of class on her part, to be sure, but that doesn’t equate into assuming that her assertion is wrong.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:55 pmBT says:
Yankee, what part of “both sides do it” to quote myself don’t you understand? I am not excusing Palin, nor am I ignoring or explaining away, as you seem to be doing, Obama’s take on small town America. By the way, from a geographical stand point, most of the country is small town or rural America, so you are wrong. I wish as you said that we had leaders who respected the many varieties of Americans that are out there, in Obama, we don’t have one.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:57 pmSkyler says:
eyesay,
You had a slight misunderstanding. I said they are extreme socialists (akin to both Bush administrations) and they are also communists (akin to the Chavez administration). I didn’t say they were extreme communists (akin to the Pol Pot or Stalin dictatorships).
Quote
November 22, 2009, 6:05 pmAllan Walstad says:
I think both kinds are bad. I’d like to stop the robbery and let people interact non-coercively. Who speaks for me?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 6:08 pmeyesay says:
Skyler: George Herbert Walker Bush, who served as Director of Central Intelligence, Vice President under Ronald Reagan, and President of the United States, was an extreme socialist. And a Communist! Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 6:15 pmArthurKirkland says:
Hey, eyesay . . . . . sshhhh! This is one of the best parts of the movie. You know, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”
Quote
November 22, 2009, 6:34 pmSkyler says:
Eyesay, you’re being quite dense. I said Bush was an extreme socialist. I didn’t say he was a communist. Is that clear enough?
Reagan was an extremely mild socialist, which seems to be as good as we’ll ever get in our lifetimes. Reagan didn’t much care for Bush, and after his single term fiasco in office it’s very clear why. Bush was an extreme socialist.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:08 pmTim Nuccio says:
You have got to be kidding me.
Thank God this is wrong. If everyone in our government were as idiotic as Palin, this country would be even further down the tubes than it is already.
By your own reasoning, you remain unpersuaded that this woman’s public image was defined by bad consultants and a biased media. It should seem clear that either your question remains unanswered, or she really is as stupid as the media portrayed her.
My suspicion is the latter.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:31 pmAlanDownunder says:
Best take so far on Palin (and what her elevation says about the US polity) is Taibbi’s.
Note: left/right is no part of the issue with Palin — it’s purely personal and mythic.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:34 pmChrisTS says:
Reagan was an extremely mild socialist, which seems to be as good as we’ll ever get in our lifetimes. Reagan didn’t much care for Bush, and after his single term fiasco in office it’s very clear why. Bush was an extreme socialist.
Ok, so you are just a bit cuckoo. That explains a lot.
I am curious, however, as to whether Reagan’s classification as a ‘mild socialist’ is a matter of his degree of commitment to socialist principles or his temperament.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Randy, I had already seen that Guardian article. I assumed you must have something more of substance, especially since the article you linked to includes this statement:
In other words, your cite is a a report on a claim by Levi, disputed by Palin’s lawyer, and that’s it.
For all you know, Levi doesn’t give a dang about seeing his kid and never asks to see him. Do you know that he’s telling the truth, or do you just want him to be telling the truth because it’s another reason for you to hate Sarah Palin?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:04 pmrpt says:
Then why do you insist that you have the right to deny others health care?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:04 pmrpt says:
No one clings to guns on this blog.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Skyler, stop telling people they can’t go to the doctor!
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:28 pmSkyler says:
rpt non sequiturred,
I never said any such thing. People should be allowed to buy any health care they wish to buy. So long as they can find someone to willingly help them pay if they can’t pay themselves. They have no right to force me to pay for their medical care, because I might not even like them.
I feel kind of bad for getting this discussion sidetracked on definitions of socialism. They are entirely moot as to why people have such rude reactions to Palin.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:35 pmrpt says:
Mr. S:
But of course you are very pleased to coerce people to pay for things you like. This “I am completely independent and no one has ever paid anything for me” argument gets old. You have been the beneficiary of “coerced payments” since before you were born.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:42 pmEH says:
“In other words, your cite is a a report on a claim by Levi, disputed by Palin’s lawyer, and that’s it.”
So maybe it was Palin herself who opened up the possibility for a defamation claim by Levi if her lawyer is having to get involved.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:25 pmRandy says:
DAngermouse: “Or, you could realize that this is just as idiotic as someone saying that they wore jeans to Church and concluded that they showed up topless. Palin was obviously talking about foreign flags only, which is obvious to all who have not lost their common sense.”
Fair enough. So why don’t you give Obama the same consideration?
“By the way, you never really answered this: are you a Trig Truther or not?”
I will once you tell me what a Trig Truther is.
Skylar: “You’re really quite full of yourself today. Why are you assuming that what the father is saying is true?”
Laura: “For all you know, Levi doesn’t give a dang about seeing his kid and never asks to see him.”
Why would I assume that what Levi has to say is true? For several reasons: First, he hasn’t been a proven liar whereas Palin has (or at the least, rather loose with the facts, as even Dangermouse agrees). Second, if he never give’s a dang about seeing his kid, then it’s highly unlikely he could care enough to actually sue for custody. He has nothing to gain by such a lawsuit and quite a bit to lose. Third, if it’s true, then it’s unlikely that he would have much of a case if he can’t show any interest in his own child. So for all these reasons, I would find him a bit more credible than Palin’s account.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:36 pmRandy says:
But this is really a sideshow. I don’t really care about her family. What bothers me more is the fact that she lied about the bridge to nowhere and lied about her position on the stimulus funds. Her substantive lies, which I notice no one here has even attempted to refute, are the real issue.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:37 pmSkyler says:
Still waiting for that “proven” liar status to be explained . . .
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:41 pmChrisTS says:
This interests me. Perhaps a good libertarian (or anarchist?) should reimburse all the other members of the polity — individualy, of course — for all the goods s.he has enjoyed and including the costs of distributing goods such as education , roads, ambulances, the national grid, etc.. Then s/he can purchase property as yet unowned to undertake his/her vision of just living with other like-minded folks.
Otherwise, it’s all just a bid for free-riding.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:51 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Sure, we don’t know what he said to Bristol. (“I swear I’ll love you forever”?)
Right, because no one ever files a lawsuit out of spite. But what has he got to lose? Also, do you have evidence that he has in fact filed such a suit? Can’t find it on Smoking Gun.
Would he know that? Also, no one else seems to have any trouble filing frivolous lawsuits against Palin. Why would the people using him be any different?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:52 pmKen Arromdee says:
It does if she’s accused of being worse in comparison to people like Obama.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 9:57 pmeyesay says:
Huffington Post: Levi Johnston To File For Custody Of Son Tripp (11–9-2009) says “‘At the end of the month I’m going to file for joint custody of Tripp,’ Johnston told the network [CBS]” — the latter story, dated 11/09/2009, begins “‘The Insider’ breaks news that Levi Johnston is going to file for joint custody of Tripp, his son with Bristol Palin.”
Also, as I understand it, it was Bristol and not Levi who ended their relationship.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:07 pmrpt says:
Yes, and they could all live in the planned unit development “Galt’s Giveaway”, in houses built of materials paid for by the taxpayers of Wasilla, and drive on roads and highways paid for by the taxes of all Americans on the way to their taxpayer-subsidized (meaning the book was written while on the government payroll) book tour. At least our esteemed ex-governor didn’t attend any taxpayer-funded public colleges or accept any taxpayer-funded health care for herself or any of her children or any taxpayer-funded travel benefits for herself or any of her children. You know the rest...............
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:21 pmChrisTS says:
rpt:
No, no. They build their own roads.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:28 pmSkyler says:
Good lord, now we’re going to have “serious” discussions of politics based on teenagers and which one broke up with the other first. I’m out of this.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:30 pmglasnost says:
I am deeply gratified to see a comment thread about Sarah Palin mention her policy on handing out checks to every Alaskan drawing breath for the great achievement of being Alaskan, which was “This is awesome! Let’s make it bigger by squeezing the oil companies!”
I’m solidly pro-Obama, and yet Sarah Palin is actually too socialist for my taste, with the added burden of being the most single greatest hypocrite of my political generation. Sarah Palin ran, and expanded, the single most unrestrained welfare state among the 50 states. Sarah Palin’s policy record on handing out free money made Massachusetts look like Alabama. And she’s *against* socialism? Hahahahahaha! Sarah Palin is for anything that makes Sarah Palin look good and sell tickets. Fiscally, she’s the equivalent of John Hagee — someone who lives the life they demonize. She makes Richard Nixon look principled.
If she ever ran for president, a major ad campaign along these lines would wipe her out among independents and turn her into Mitt Romney.
In a field of Republican candidates, her record is literally dead last on “free-market principles”. There’s no one you could name who she could be ahead. She ran Alaska along the Saudi Arabia plan, without the Islam.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:51 pmRandy says:
Skylar: “Still waiting for that “proven” liar status to be explained . . .”
I’ve provided the link. If you choose to ignore, that’s your problem, not mine.
“Good lord, now we’re going to have “serious” discussions of politics based on teenagers and which one broke up with the other first. I’m out of this.”
Ditto. As I said before, her actions towards Levi are of little interest to me. Laura keeps pressing me about it, and I’ve answered, but I stated I care much more about Palin’s demonstrated lies.
But for a complete list, here you go:
Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)
Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.
Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.
Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.
Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.
Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.
Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.
Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.
Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.
Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 — two years into her first term — and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.
Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.
Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.
Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies — a tax widely criticized by Republicans.
Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.
Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.
Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.
Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.
Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing — without elaborating.
Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.
Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.
Palin lied when she told Oprah that she desperately wanted to go on Saturday Night Live because it would be “fun” and could push back on the Tina Fey impression Palin says she hated but never actually listened to. Contemporaneous emails show that Palin resisted going on SNL and was therefore lying to Oprah.
Palin lied when she told Oprah Winfrey that she gaffed on the campaign trail in saying that the McCain campaign shouldn’t quit Michigan. She said she had been unaware at the time that the decision to withdraw had already been taken. Contemporaneous emails show she was lying, and had already been told.
Palin lied in “Going Rogue: in accusing two journalists she recognized from a press conference as ambushing her daughter Piper on the street. One of those journalists had never attended the press conference cited by Palin, but Palin has never withdrawn the charge.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:56 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Upthread some:
Palin is a stick with which to beat Obama.
A pretty hefty stick, it turns out.
You’ll recall that Palin was candidate for VP.
The reason that Palin is compared to Obama is that the dems kept Joe Biden–remember him? he was candidate for VP, same as Palin–out of sight. Joe “the Gaffemaster” is so dumb that there was no way the dems could allow appreciations of him to be be matched with appreciations of Palin.
So it’s Palin, governor of an obscure state, with a non-Ivy background, giving Obama, groomed by who knows whom, with an Ivy background (we are told) second to none fits.
Go figure.
It wasn’t the republicans who decided to hide Biden and leave Obama the only target in sight.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:14 pmSkyler says:
Randy, those “lies” appear to come from a weirdo named Sullivan who is obsessed with proving the woman didn’t give birth to her own son. Sorry, no credibility is given your source.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:21 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Proof that Palin is a liar can be found here (and also in lots of other places, but this is sufficient).
The proof has nothing to do with Andrew Sullivan, so hiding behind him isn’t going to work.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:36 pmeyesay says:
Richard Aubrey wrote,
I’m not sorry to rain on your Palin parade, Richard. Your theory that the public resonated with Palin and not with Biden does not jibe with the facts.
There was a televised debate between Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin on October 2, 2008. According to a poll of uncommitted voters conducted immediately after the debate by CBS News and the former Knowledge Network, 46% thought Senator Biden won the debate, 21% thought Governor Palin had won, and 33% thought it was a tie. Fox News Channel held a poll regarding the performance of each candidate, with 51% of the votes in favor of Biden, and 39% in favor of Palin. The Opinion Research Corporation’s poll on the debate revealed that 51% of viewers felt Biden had won, while 36% were in favor of Palin. In the same poll, 87% said Biden was capable of fulfilling the duties of the vice presidency, while 42% said Palin is. Source with additional references
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:36 pmSkyler says:
Juke, okay. I think this stacks up as kind of really small in the scale of politicians lying, though. I also think that a cop that tasers a 10 year old kid probably should be fired, but that’s just me.
When we talk of politicians lying, usually we expect that they all lie. Haven’t seen one that doesn’t, have you? There are limits to what one might allow for. Perjury is one I draw the line at, but most of the democrat party a dozen or so years ago seemed to think it’s okay.
Any politician coming out of Chicago has no room to complain about lying politicians. Corruption is so institutionalized that the Governor felt free to speak openly about it when he knew he was under investigation.
But I suppose when you don’t actively stop subordinates from acting to get a cop fired (a cop that works for the Governor) because he tasered a ten year old kid, then I suppose you might could kind of call that a lie. Maybe. Doesn’t really matter. I doubt I’d vote for the lady or that most people would. But I sure appreciate how she is getting people to listen to her, and I find it unpardonable that even here on a vaguely respectable blog that she is discussed in a post titled “Palin, Ignorance and Stupidity Revisited.” That title says more about the bigotry of the author than the supposed stupidity of the subject.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:47 pmDangerMouse says:
Randy,those “lies” of Palin, again, are idiotic. Almost every single one of them is like “wearing jeans to Church means going topless.” The left just can’t comprehend any other kind of thinking. It leads them to parse words needlessly, like the definition of “is.” Hey, that’s a great reminder: it is quite ironic to see libs trying to attack the so-called lies of Palin. Lest we all forget, these are libs who in all likelihood supported that fanatical liar President, Clinton.
Oh, and Randy, I think it’s clear that you’re a Trig Truther. If you read Sullivan at all, then you know his reputation is in the gutter because he’s acting Trutherish regarding whether Trig is really Palin’s baby. Do you seriously think denying it is going to protect you? Sorry. I used to think at least you had some brains, but if you’re on board with Sullivan “just questioning” Trig and Palin, then you’re insane.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 11:58 pmjukeboxgrad says:
skyler:
If you think it’s OK for anyone (politician or otherwise) to lie as frequently and as blatantly as Palin does, then your standards are too low. But we already knew that.
Whether or not Wooten should have been fired has nothing to do with Palin claiming the Branchflower report didn’t say what it actually said. Nice job trying to change the subject.
By the way, you probably don’t realize that the Palin family waited two years to report the Taser incident. You also probably don’t realize that Bristol admitted to the police that they finally brought it up “because of the divorce.”
You also probably don’t realize that Palin claimed that Monegan was never pressured to fire Wooten, even though there is ample proof (including her own emails) that Monegan was pressured to fire Wooten.
You also probably don’t realize that Palin made a series of false accusations against Wooten.
The wiki article I’m citing includes links to primary sources (such as the original police interviews of Palin and her family) which support the claims in the article. Let me know if you can find any errors, or any claim that is not supported by a primary source.
Nice try. Palin and her staff repeatedly pressured Monegan to fire Wooten, and then Palin claimed that Monegan was never pressured to fire Wooten. If a lie that transparent means nothing to you, then you and Palin are made for each other.
With Palin the lies never stop. I’ll be disappointed if the GOP picks someone else. She’s exactly who they deserve.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 1:37 amLeo Marvin says:
jbg, good to see you.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:07 amjukeboxgrad says:
Likewise! You’re one of the main reasons I keep reading.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:11 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jasonmcclain: Sympathetic yet rational and critical review of Palin and Going Rogue ::: from the Volokh Conspiracy, natch.
http://bit.ly/85Hd40...
Richard Aubrey says:
eyesay
Is that the debate in which Biden insisted the US and the French threw Hizbollah out of Lebanon or some such nonsense?
The press didn’t call him on it. They never did. Nobody did.
If the press tells everybody Palin’s an idiot and Biden’s a genius, some people are going to believe it.
However, you’re wrong anyway. Biden disappeared. Nobody talked about how many times his mouth screwed up. You recall that homey line about so-and-so’s diner? Out of business. Imagine what jbg would have done if Palin had said something like that.
Nobody called Biden on anything in such a fashion as to reach the public.
So we had two controversial figures–McCain wasn’t–Obama and Palin.
Obama groomed–it doesn’t take much to be groomed, a favorable notice from a columnist is sufficient–practically all his adult life for winning campaigns, and Palin who’d actually done some things.
The two were so different that there ought not to have been any comparison at all.
It was interesting. You could stand in a discussion of Palin’s negative IQ and scream BIDEN!!!! and it was as if you had said nothing, made not a sound.
Fortunately for the dems, they were able to make him a non-person for the duration of the campaign.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 8:08 amjukeboxgrad says:
It’s always entertaining to watch the usual suspects yell about Obama, Biden, Trig Trutherism, Tasers, Andrew Sullivan, Bill Clinton and the kitchen sink in a pathetic attempt to direct attention away from the salient and incontrovertible fact that Palin is a habitual liar.
The fact that this fact doesn’t even enter Somin’s analysis is important information about Somin, VC, and the GOP. And it fits in with a history here of supporting Palin’s efforts to revise history regarding Troopergate.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 9:05 amDoc Merlin says:
I think she’s been spending quite a bit of time recently boning up on national issues. Her frequent writing on facebook about such issues and also the kind of driven person she is, leads me to think so. Anyway, we have 3 years till the election, and we should find out a lot as that time comes.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 12:08 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
Doc Merlin, please read what you just wrote. Her boning up on national issues as evidenced by “her frequent writing on facebook”???!!!!! So Facebook is where she’s displaying her national policy chops!!! Oh ok, that’s not embarrassing and pathetic or anything like that.
The woman is a pitiful joke. Facebook is exactly where she should be and stay.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 12:22 pmDoc Merlin says:
Hrm, yah, possibly... of course all interested parties already said what they were going to say months ago. Face it, everyone, Obama isn’t dithering, he is delaying.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 12:26 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Doc Merlin.
I had been under the impression that Obama’s LSATs weren’t available.
Is that true?
Quote
November 23, 2009, 12:36 pmChrisTS says:
Hey, JBG is back! Have you been in hiding?
Quote
November 23, 2009, 1:00 pmDavid Nieporent says:
“Palin lied because someone disagreed with her” is not a “demonstrated lie.” Nor is “Palin lied because she said X and if I were in her shoes I would have done Y” is not a “demonstrated lie.” “Palin lied because someone else did something else” is not a “demonstrated lie.”
Quote
November 23, 2009, 2:10 pmjukeboxgrad says:
aubrey:
Any theory about why Palin has failed to release transcripts from the five colleges she attended? What’s she trying to hide? Likewise, have you seen McCain’s transcripts? Or Romney’s? Or their birth certificates?
Are you aware of any recent candidates who released their college transcript when they were candidates? Dubya didn’t release his: it was leaked. And Kerry didn’t release his until long after he was no longer a candidate. And we still haven’t seen their birth certificates. How do we know Dubya wasn’t born while his mom and dad were traveling in China?
Hopefully someone will explain why Obama has been expected to do things that no other candidate has done.
========================
Hi Chris, good to see you. I started posting here years ago, shortly after comments were first opened. And my pattern over the entire period has been to come and go, often taking long breaks. Sometimes this has led to premature celebration by certain parties. Rumors of my demise etc.
However, I do greatly dislike the new formatting. Have you noticed that traffic is down? I think I’m not the only one.
On the other hand, there’s nothing like a Palin thread. How could I stay away? She and her supporters are highly entertaining. More than anything else, she’s an entertainer. Her highest skill is attracting attention (both the positive kind and the negative kind). That’s why she and the press are locked in their mutually profitable embrace.
Palin whines about getting negative attention, but her worst nightmare is that the press will stop paying attention. Palin, like Rush, is all about attracting attention. Substance and integrity are quite secondary to that. The GOP is in solid hands.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 2:13 pmjukeboxgrad says:
nieporent:
Feel free to explain how this is something other than a “demonstrated lie.”
Quote
November 23, 2009, 2:26 pmakwilco says:
Living in Juneau and working with the state legislature at the time of her election, I would argue that she was campaigning for higher office as soon as she was elected governor. The political scuttlebutt at the time, however, was that she was gunning for U.S. Senate, probably Ted Steven’s position.
Many political people noticed that Governor Palin carefully avoided speaking engagements that were politically sensitive after the election. She turned down invitations to speak at both the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) convention and at the Alaska Municipal League (AML) convention. In both cases, she was too busy cutting ribbons at, respectively, a Wal-Mart and a strip mall. The AFN represents much of the rural parts of the state, and strongly push for a subsistence priority for natives, a political hot potato in Alaska. The AML represents Alaska city mayors and local governments. At the time they were arguing for continuation of the power cost equalization payments to rural communities, which went against Ms. Palin’s political base.
Perhaps these snubs were less political maneuvering and more petty vindictiveness, hard to tell. She is vindictive of people who disagree with her and, as others have noted, she is thin-skinned. But many people noticed that Governor Palin was often “missing in action” after her election. A popular bumper sticker in Juneau at the time read “Hey Sarah — The Job’s In Juneau”.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:28 pmSandy MacHoots says:
What’s the lie? A private investigator under the direction of a Democratic legislator made that conclusion. On Palin’s request the State Personnel Board investigated, hiring an independent counsel. She was fully cleared by that investigation. The fact that you want to believe in the accusation, not in the adjudicated result, doesn’t make her statement a lie. She was cleared.
So, you want to admit that you just lied about her?
Quote
November 23, 2009, 6:59 pmChrisTS says:
JBG: I did not have the data, but I sensed there were fewer regulars. I don’t know if that is the format or the influx of people trolling for hot-threads like this one. (Not an improvement.)
Quote
November 23, 2009, 8:08 pmjukeboxgrad says:
machoots:
Either your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor, or you must think the people you are addressing are exceptionally stupid. I can’t think of any other possibilities.
When Palin said on 10/11/08 that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” she was not describing the results of the State Personnel Board investigation. She could not possibly have been describing the results of that investigation because the results of that investigation (under the direction of a board appointed by the governor) were not announced until 11/3/08. Do you understand that the arrow of time always moves forward?
When Palin said on 10/11/08 that she had been “cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” she was describing the results of the Branchflower investigation, which had been announced the prior day. Trouble is, her description was false.
The issue (at the moment) is not which report is more credible. The issue is that she made a false statement about the Branchflower report.
By the way, the Petumenos report is a joke, as I demonstrated in detail here.
Palin’s lie is that she falsely described the outcome of the Branchflower investigation. And your lie is to pretend that her statement about the Branchflower report was a statement about a different report that hadn’t even been released yet.
So, do you want to admit that your feeble attempt to whitewash Palin’s lie is incoherent gibberish?
Quote
November 23, 2009, 10:47 pmRandy says:
Dangermouse: “If you read Sullivan at all, then you know his reputation is in the gutter because he’s acting Trutherish regarding whether Trig is really Palin’s baby. Do you seriously think denying it is going to protect you? Sorry. I used to think at least you had some brains, but if you’re on board with Sullivan “just questioning” Trig and Palin, then you’re insane.”
Just because I read Sullivan doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he says. I don’t give a hoot whether Trig is really Palin’s baby. However, coming from someone who insists that Obama isn’t really a citizen until he produces his birth certificate, you shouldn’t be throwing stones at anyone who demands proof from any politician.
And so my statement will “protect” me from what, exactly? Sullivan has presented evidence of her lies, and quite openly asks anyone, including anyone from Palin’s camp, to explain the lie as somehow truthful. That includes you, dear Dangermouse. If you think that any of the lies quoted above are in fact Palin’s truthful statements, then please do refute everyone. In one sweep, you can embarass Sullivan, me, and all the rest of Palin’s detractors. So could Palin. But, naturally, you can’t. Instead, you merely insult and issue vague threats. I guess that’s all you really have left, isn’t it? Heck, even Skylar admits these are lies, and now we are merely arguing over the import of them.
Personally, I don’t really care about Palin. Evidently, she gives you ‘starbursts’, and there is no reasoning with someone biten with her bug. She isn’t going anywhere, except to the bank, and I’m perfectly content with that.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:33 amLeo Marvin says:
jbg, that’s much too kind. I hope you’ll come by more often anyway. We (well, some of us) miss you.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:44 amjukeboxgrad says:
Leo, thanks.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:19 pm