John Mark Reynolds of the conservative First Things blog has written a detailed chapter by chapter review of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. His conclusions, which he summarizes here are similar to mine, an interesting result given that both of us were initially sympathetic to Palin, albeit for partially different reasons:
Sarah Palin has not grown in the year since the election. Those of us who hoped that Palin had been “hidden” by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.
She is smart, but not book-smart. She has common sense, but not practical wisdom. These are not fatal flaws, but she shows no signs of changing or recognizing them….
Palin uses four hundred pages to give her side of things, but I am still at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail …
While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them.
I have not given up on Palin and find much in her to admire, but she would not get my primary vote based on this book and what I know about her to date. I hope I am wrong and am open to changing my mind.
Ultimately, the problem with Palin is not that she is folksy, that she is religious, that she didn’t attend a prestigious university, or that she dislikes “East Coast elites.” These are all side issues. Like Reynolds, I also don’t believe that she is stupid. The problem is that she is ignorant about major national political issues, and has made no apparent effort to remedy that ignorance. That might be perfectly fine if she limited her ambitions to Alaska (she does seem to be knowledgeable about Alaska issues) or decided to be just a pop culture figure or activist. It is far more problematic if she intends to run for president.
Of course, there is always the outside chance that Palin is deliberately pretending to be much more ignorant than she actually is, as Dwight D. Eisenhower did when he was president; perhaps for the purpose of getting her political enemies to underestimate her (which was one of Eisenhower’s motives). However, there are many obvious differences between Palin’s situation and Ike’s, such as the fact that only one of them had already proven his competence beyond reasonable doubt by successfully commanding the Allied forces Europe during World War II (a feat that required considerable policy knowledge and intellectual ability, among other things). If Palin really is copying Ike’s strategy (which I highly doubt), it is long past time for her to try a different approach. People aren’t going to like Sarah in the same way that an earlier generation liked Ike.
The Awful Truth says:
I think any Republican looking at Palin for 2012, should consider these points.
Obama came into office with very limited experience. His supporters said this wouldn’t matter, but IMO it clearly it has had a severe negative impact on his effectiveness.
Palin is as inexperienced as Obama was.
This isn’t what we need in a candidate. Or in a President.
December 3, 2009, 7:53 pmwws says:
Awful truth, pretty much what I was thinking. We’ve already made the mistake of putting someone who was completely inexperienced and hopelessly out of his depth into the office of the Presidency; there’s no need to make that mistake a second time. Some would say that applies to Bush; I would counter that Obama’s foreign policy is starting to make Bush look pretty good by comparison. The only foreign policies in which Obama has been even minimally effective are those in which he’s followed Bush policies exclusively. Everything else he’s tried has been a disaster. (re: Honduras, in which the US has switched it’s position so many times that no one can come up with any rational explanation at all for what our policy goals there are anymore)
Oh, and remember how Obama was going to get Iran to cut back its nuclear program by talking nicely to them? Someone tell me how that’s working out again.
December 3, 2009, 8:10 pmRay Gardner says:
It’s just as likely that she’s keeping her powder dry until we’re farther along in the game. She’s pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc and that’s good enough for the conservative base for now. Staking out too many positions this far out from an election would only open her up to things that can be used against her later. It’s enough to simply be the anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi right now.
Beyond that, I think most people in the commenting biz simply dislike her because she’s religious.
December 3, 2009, 8:14 pmShelby says:
I like Sarah Palin, but I’m not very impressed by her. I think I’m closer to John Mark Reynolds’ view of her than I am to Ilya’s. She was a pretty good official and then governor for Alaska, until her resignation (or arguably until her VP candidacy sent Alaska’s left wing insane, leading to incessant attacks on her which Alaskan law did not enable her to effectively challenge).
She’s fairly similar, at least so far, to how Reagan’s enemies characterized him — except smarter. She needs to get intellectually engaged on political issues beyond the scope of Alaska if she really hopes to have significant political influence, let alone run for President.
Awful Truth, you’re wrong. Palin still has more executive experience than Obama — and in fact, had more even before she was Governor. There are plenty of more valid criticisms to levy against her; stick to those.
December 3, 2009, 8:33 pmwolfefan says:
Thanks, Ilya, for sending me to Reynolds’ review. Very interesting, very thorough, and a good example of how someone can be very sympathetic to an author and her views and still give a very negative review. I appreciated his insistence on intellectual integrity and the idea that ideas matter.
I lol’d at the note in the comments section about the misattribution of a quote by Chief John Wooden Leg to Coach John Wooden.
December 3, 2009, 8:41 pmloki13 says:
Post is about Palin.
Comment 1: Obama!
Comment 2: Obama!
Comment 3: Mostly Palin (although she is the Anti-Obama!)
Comment 4: Ronald Reagan! (Really…. Reagan? It’s almost like calling every 2-guard the “next Jordan”. Palin is to Reagan as a Yugo is to a Mercedes.)
Comment 5: John Wooden (okay, that’s actual variety).
I will be shocked (SHOCKED!) when someone can actually make a defense of Palin without referring to Obama (which is neither persuasive to those who like Obama, nor makes sense because you’re arguing that she’s better than “THE OBAMESSIAH THAT WILL COMMUNIZE AMERICA WITH HIS KENYAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION”, which seems a low bar) or saying she’s the next Reagan.
December 3, 2009, 8:49 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Since neither Reynolds nor Somin has demonstrated exactly what intellectual skills are “necessary” in a president, it’s hard to take this kind of commentary seriously. Palin was paid to write a memoir and campaign history, which is exactly what she wrote.
As for her “governing philosophy,” is it really possibly that you have no idea what it is? What exactly was Reagan’s “governing philosophy” beyond “government is the problem” and the USSR was an “evil empire”?
December 3, 2009, 8:52 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Since the book was written frankly as a memoir of her life and the campaign, finding few policy prescriptions in it seems to be like finding no snowballs in the breadbasket.
December 3, 2009, 8:55 pmYeah. None. So?
Roger the Shrubber says:
It’s one thing to be ignorant about major issues; it’s another to be apathetic about your ignorance. Palin goes there.
Meanwhile, she may well be smarter than most people think. But who really believes her claim that she reads The Economist?
December 3, 2009, 9:11 pmbyomtov says:
Since the book was written frankly as a memoir of her life and the campaign, finding few policy prescriptions in it seems to be like finding no snowballs in the breadbasket.
OK, Richard, but that’s not what Rush said:
this book is full of policy. That’s what makes it remarkable.
Careful or you’ll have to apologize to him.
December 3, 2009, 9:12 pmravenshrike says:
*blinks* Anybody expecting her to have grown in terms of experience clearly doesn’t understand how books are written. She pretty much had to have started getting this written within a couple weeks after the election. The majority of the input on her part except for corrections and relatively minor additions/subtractions was probably over at or soon after Obama’s inauguration. Then you would invariably have had the months of copy editing, and they would have decided on a release date, which was probably close to the anniversary of the election for a specific reason. Expecting large amounts of growth in a 2-3 month time frame especially with the holidays and dealing with all the bullshit lawsuits, not to mention the fact that she was still governor, is a rather short-sighted position to take.
December 3, 2009, 9:13 pmloki13 says:
Sandy McHoots,
While I am largely ambivalent about Reagan, comments like your show both a bizarre elevation of Palin and a saddening denigration of Reagan. While I might disagree with his political philosophy, he certainly had one, and was the first true Goldwater GOP national figure to attain success. Early on, he was fighting against big government (see his charming recording of medicare as socialism distributed, I believe, by the AMA). He worked hard to organize and persuade Hollywood, and later, California to his Western-GOP (proto-libertarian) style. I am always amazed that for such a venerated figure, the GOP sells him so shrt. Why is it convenient to think of him as the rube with no political philosophy, instead of the masterful politician who burst on to the scene at the Goldwater convention?
December 3, 2009, 9:17 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
RE: Is she stupid? I would say she is too incoherent to be called “stupid” or “smart”.
I have seen people like her, when I was on psych rotation in med school. Inability to hold a thought long enough to finish a sentence, rapid switching from one topic to another, plus inability to you in the eye–these indicate that the patient is too uncomfortable with herself to focus attention. She always needs to be thinking, or doing, something other than what she is thinking or doing.
Palin STILL has not published her medical history. Remember that strange letter from her doctor which said, essentially “She’s ok now”? I will bet any amount of money that there is something in her medical history which would kill her political career in a flash if it were published. My bet: an involuntary hospitalization for suicidal behavior/danger-to-self.
December 3, 2009, 9:19 pmmetro11 says:
loki13 dislikes palin. that’s proof if ever there was that palin is good and will be wonderful as our next president
December 3, 2009, 9:21 pmBob from Ohio says:
It was a personal autobiography and memoir of the campaign. Not a policy book
Does Reynolds look in history books for math?
I can still give a completely unbiased look at Romney’s chief potential rival. Trust me. Really.
They won’t take my advice, but its better for the “intellectuals” and wannabe “opinion makers” in the GOP/conservative side to keep quiet about Palin if they want to stop her. Sniping at her makes her fans like her more.
December 3, 2009, 9:26 pmloki13 says:
metro11,
Wow, it’s amazing that you inferred that- where did I imply that? I’d love to see an actual defense of Palin.* As someone who almost voted GOP in 2000 (until the dirty tricks S CAR. primary) and is still a conservative in economics, I would be low-hanging fruit for a moderate GOP. But I’m unlikely to ever be attracted back to a party that has cravenly caters to supporters, like you, that choose politicians primarily based on how much they piss off other Americans.
*I’ve never said Palin was dumb. I think she is a decent politician. I also think she is venal- which is typical for a politican, but in my opinion she has shown the trait of self-aggrandizement at the expense (often literally) of the public a little too often. I think she has a startling lack of curiousity, which is not a trait I admire. And, finally, I just don’t think she’s anywhere close to the best candidate for the job. Ideally, she should have either a) been governor longer or b) been governor of a state that was at least a little more typical of America or c) been in a position that required more knowledge of the Federal government. That’s my opinion. So I wouldnt vote for her. But then again, I wouldn’t vote for her anyway based on her political positions, so it doesn’t really matter.
December 3, 2009, 9:33 pmDangerMouse says:
They won’t take my advice, but its better for the “intellectuals” and wannabe “opinion makers” in the GOP/conservative side to keep quiet about Palin if they want to stop her. Sniping at her makes her fans like her more.
This is very true. Most people know that the “intellectuals” and “opinion makers” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about anyway, if the ClimateGate scandal means anything.
I didn’t expect to read this book as a memo on what ethanol policy should be.
December 3, 2009, 9:38 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Operation Counterstrike – I’m on one of those teams that trains folks like you when they have their psych rotation. I’ve been doing it for 30 years. Your knowledge of psychology is flat-out stupid. It has nothing to do with any recognised psychiatric assessment. I hope you learned more on your other rotations.
December 3, 2009, 9:38 pmbyomtov says:
Some questions for Reynolds:
Palin has the makings of a splendid executive
What evidence for this?
Palin was an effective mayor and governor.
What accomplishments lead you to this conclusion? Please bear in mind that a high oil price, which benefits Alaska greatly, cannot at all be attributed to the actions of the sate’s governor.
Palin has been abused by the culture and is justifiably hurt and enraged.
How “abused” by the culture? Because she was interviewed on national TV and made an ass of herself? Why “justifiably?” Heat. Kitchen.
December 3, 2009, 9:44 pmDangerMouse says:
Ilya, I’m curious about which national political issues you think Palin is ignorant of. And what, exactly, do you mean she’s ignorant of an issue? That she’s unaware it exists as an issue (perhaps she’s unaware of an impending Zombie attack?), or that she doesn’t have an informed answer (she can’t tell you how she’d defeat the zombies)?
I mean, your average Joe on the street is pretty informed about the basic big national issues of the day: al Qaeda, government spending, business regulation, mortgage ownership, energy independence, etc. Your average Joe probably won’t have informed answers to those issues, but Palin does. She’s talked about all of them, as politicians do on both the left and the right using their standard talking points.
I’m a little unsure of what, exactly, your specific criticism is. It sounds like completely unserious criticism, intentionally so, in order to belittle her for some reason.
December 3, 2009, 9:46 pmyankee says:
I’m far from convinced she’s religious. The more a politician feels the need to tell everyone how religious they are, the less I believe them.
December 3, 2009, 9:46 pmHouston Lawyer says:
While I like Palin (I thought her Convention speech was spectacular), I share Ilya’s concern about her lack of intellectual curiosity.
Instincts can take you pretty far, but I doubt that they can get you through an election where the press will be fanatically hostile. You’ve got to be able to convince John Q. Public that you at least have a rudimentary grasp on national issues.
Her “death panels” speech, while at first ridiculed, may turn out to be the most significant policy speech stopping the government takeover of medicine. This shows a knack for connecting with people that is above and beyond what most pols can dream of.
December 3, 2009, 9:54 pmmetro11 says:
First Professor Somin tells us about the evils of patriotism. Then he poo-poos Palin. Next he’ll give a detailed account about why apple pie is over-rated.
December 3, 2009, 10:04 pmEarly Bird says:
I think there’s a good chance that Palin has no intention/desire to run for president, that instead she needs to be seen as a potential candidate in order to sell books, get on Oprah, and generally remain a public figure. I think there’s an excellent chance she’s just cashing in and, ultimately, won’t run, or won’t make a serious run. I of course don’t know that this is what’s going on, but I think it would explain her total lack of growth, noted by Somin and Reynolds.
December 3, 2009, 10:07 pmjccamp says:
Ass’t V I @ 9:38
Short and to the point. I had to laugh. Very good.
December 3, 2009, 10:07 pmMalvolio says:
Yeah, they used to say that about Reagan too.
If you want to hear a clever man embarrass himself, read Oliver Sacks’s essay on Reagan, “The President’s Speech”. Starting from the observation that people with severe brain damage didn’t seem to like Reagan, he managed to conclude that the rest of us shouldn’t like Reagan either. Now that Reagan is recognized as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th Century, I wonder if Sacks would like to take back his remarks.
I keep waiting for liberals to ask themselves questions like, “Why do we keep getting our asses handed to us by these idiot conservatives?” “Why are the policies foisted on the country by these idiot conservatives popular and enduring while our policies have to be continually mended-if-not-ended?” “Since they seem to be smarter than us, should we stop calling these idiot conservatives idiots?” I’ve been waiting almost 30 years, ever since idiot Reagan crushed genius Carter, and nothing.
December 3, 2009, 10:13 pmDangerMouse says:
First Professor Somin tells us about the evils of patriotism. Then he poo-poos Palin. Next he’ll give a detailed account about why apple pie is over-rated.
LOL. Thread winner!
December 3, 2009, 10:21 pmleofromlansing says:
If John Mark Reynolds thinks someone who cannot name the newspapers or magazines he or she reads is “smart” then he is are a pathetic, ill-informed moron.
December 3, 2009, 10:22 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Why do I feel I am looking at Rip Van Winkle, after he has awoken, proclaiming himself a loyal subject of King George, unaware that the American Revolution has taken place while he slept.
When are conservatives going to ask how they got their asses handed to them (by a much wider electoral margin) by a black man with a funny name and secret Kenyan-Indonesian citizenship. Oh, wait! Absolutely humongous ballot stuffing by ACORN and voter intimidation by the many Black Panther chapters in North Carolina.
December 3, 2009, 10:28 pmDangerMouse says:
When are conservatives going to ask how they got their asses handed to them (by a much wider electoral margin) by a black man with a funny name and secret Kenyan-Indonesian citizenship.
White pleasure at electing a black man. They’ll get over it once Obama’s terrible performance becomes too obvious to ignore. The same thing happened to David Dinkins.
December 3, 2009, 10:29 pmleofromlansing says:
This is from Mr. Somin’s prior post on Ms. Palin deserves to be repeated. It’s just priceless.
December 3, 2009, 10:31 pmyankee says:
By whom? The man who gave us the savings and loan crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, giant budget deficits, higher taxes on the middle class, and a stepped up war on drugs is nowhere near the top of the pack in my book.
Plus he raised the drinking age to 21, which should be more than enough to consign him to the dustbin of history. :-)
December 3, 2009, 10:50 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I think Palin’s abuse is more than stumbling in an interview. After all, that’s Biden’s schtick and nobody calls him on it.
December 3, 2009, 10:51 pmI think of things like wondering if Trig is her baby, insisting she’s a book burner, accusing her of charging rape victims for rape kits. Simply calling her stupid.
Neo-neocon has a couple of posts on the inexplicable hate directed toward Palin, one quoting a longish piece by Robin of Berkley whom I believe is also a shrink.
Reclusive Leftist had some long and incandescently angry posts on the subject, too, from a far-left feminist POV.
I know a couple of women who barely scraped by an el ed major in Enormous State University who think Palin’s dumb as a box of hammers. Helps to have somebody dumber than them, I suppose. For the less genetically favored, you can call a pretty woman dumb, too. That helps for a while, I expect.
For the feminists who insist women are forever oppressed by the patriarchy and are forever vulnerable to whatever evil the next testicle-bearer who passes will inflict, a woman who can clearly kick ass is a threat to their paychecks. Especially if she can do it in heels without mussing her hair or dropping Trig’s bottle. And the First Dude sweats testosterone while supporting his wife. Cognitive difficulties here.
The other female POTUS candidate rode her hubby’s coattails to a couple of positions she’s having a hard time filling.
The only recourse is to hate and ridicule Palin while pretending to a reasoned view of her intelligence.
Visualize transparency.
Richard Aubrey says:
Yankee. How did Reagan give us the S&L crisis?
December 3, 2009, 10:55 pmWas it his idea to change how assets were valued?
Fill us in.
Also, you may want to throw in a reference to “hostages” when talking about the Iran crisis. It would be a nice thing to do. And how the Contras actually won the election.
And how the “crisis” was an attempt to criminalize foreign policy.
You know. Just to keep things fair.
rpt says:
Would that she actually followedf the tenets of Christianity…
December 3, 2009, 10:55 pmSteve says:
The politics of resentment is an amazing thing to witness. So many conservatives who, when given a chance to explain why they admire Sarah Palin, will instinctively cite as the first reason that she’s hated by all the right people!
December 3, 2009, 11:00 pmRandy says:
As I mentioned in a previous post, Andrew Sullivan has been keeping track of Palin’s demonstrated lies. These are statements she made that are verifiably untrue. One example is that she said she was never in favor of the bridge to nowhere and handed the money back to the feds. That of course is not true — she was in favor of the bridge and when it got controversial, she merely spent the money elsewhere, not handing it back.
It’s clear that she lies on important issues and unimportant ones. She lies on things that are easy to verify and ones that are not. Such indiscriminate lying is why I don’t like her, and it has nothing to do with her being religious.
December 3, 2009, 11:01 pmAndrew L says:
Randy can you link to exactly what it is that Palin says about the bridge (preferably with context)? I’m not jumping to her defense – just curious.
December 3, 2009, 11:17 pmRandy says:
Just recently, Palin said that she thinks whether Obama was born in the US is still a question worth pursuing. Click here.
How anyone can take her seriously is beyond me. Unless, of course, *anyone* still believes these silly and unsubstantiated attacks on Obama.
December 3, 2009, 11:18 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » John Mark Reynolds on Sarah Palin -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bethan Tuttle, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: John Mark Reynolds on Sarah Palin: John Mark Reynolds of the conservative First Things blog has written a detai.. http://bit.ly/60ATNT [...]
December 3, 2009, 11:54 pmbbbeard says:
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. You should visit her Facebook page and read some of her Notes. She puts more effort into documenting her thoughts and positions on the issues of the day than any other politician of either stripe.
BBB
December 4, 2009, 12:01 amArthurKirkland says:
1) Many comparisons of Palin to Reagan seem inapt. Did not Reagan devote long hours to writing lengthy policy treatments, considering and refining arguments as much for private reflection and improvement as for any public consumption?
2) I do not understand how anyone can claim to see a conservative trajectory in the most recent half-century of American history. Much of current conservatism seems to consist of arguing against decades of what are asserted to be bad choices (abortion, treatment of gays, increased availability of legal remedies, less deference to authority and religion) or overreaching (race relations, government programs, regulation of business, gun control) by American society.
December 4, 2009, 12:05 amOrin Kerr says:
Although Palin is a polarizing figure, I think she deserves much better defenses than her proponents are offering here. The defenses of Palin in this thread are mostly free of substance: They either point the figure elsewhere, announce without analysis that the criticism is unserious, or declare that critics should be quiet. Can’t we do better than that?
December 4, 2009, 12:11 amleofromlansing says:
Probably not.
I mean, c’mon Orin, she couldn’t even name off the top of her head a few newspapers/magazines that she read. A reasonably well-informed teenager (who doesn’t have a brain injury) could do that.
She’s just an idiot.
The real mystery here is why so many people seem to think otherwise.
December 4, 2009, 12:21 amOrin Kerr says:
Richard Aubrey,
Didn’t I ban you from commenting here a while back? That’s my recollection, and your sarcastic comments here seem to suggest my apparent judgment was a wise one. (The switch to new software didn’t carry over the same list of banned commenters, so alas we need to reban our commenters.)
December 4, 2009, 12:22 amleofromlansing says:
Here’s another test: I’d bet if you asked any of the “Real Housewives of Orange County” what newspapers or magazines they read, they could either a) name them or b) say they didn’t read any.
Do you think that someone who is more ignorant than they are can be defended as presidential material?
December 4, 2009, 12:24 amgeokstr says:
You’re complaining about her “lies” but have nothing but the highest regard for Obama’s honesty and integrity, right?
December 4, 2009, 12:24 amnotrichardaubrey says:
“your sarcastic comments here seem to suggest my apparent judgment was a wise one”
Orin, is there any chance you could stop being such a whiney little bitch?
Your “civility” shtick is really tiresome and transparent.
And, please go ahead and feel free to ban this IP. It’s a proxy, numbnuts.
December 4, 2009, 12:28 amsecond history says:
Since neither Reynolds nor Somin has demonstrated exactly what intellectual skills are “necessary” in a president, it’s hard to take this kind of commentary seriously.
ChrisTS has identified the intellectual skills necessary for a president:
Based on Going Rogue, the answers to the above questions are not discernable. Based on her public statements (“death panels” and questioning Obama’s birth certificate, Facebook pronouncements, among others) the answer to the questions is no.
December 4, 2009, 12:28 amOrin Kerr says:
Notrichardaubrey,
I’m rubber, and you’re glue. Anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
So HA, take that!
December 4, 2009, 12:32 amOren says:
If that foreign policy is in clear violation of black letter law, then yes, we ought to criminalize it.
December 4, 2009, 12:32 amOren says:
Yes, nothing like exhorting people to engage in actual argument to really irritate people!
December 4, 2009, 12:37 amloki13 says:
Personally, I enjoy Orin’s civillity. It encourages me to keep my most base instincts in check.
Not that I’m always successful with that.
But I, too, would love a defense of Palin that did not consist of:
1. But….. Obama!
2. She’s Reagan! (She’s not. Reagan is Reagan. Palin is Palin.)
3. She’s the bestest poltician of any stripe evah! FTW!
You know, something like- She has spoken about issue X, and I agree with it for reasons Y. She did A, which had beneficial consequence B. She has said she will do J if President, which I support for L.
December 4, 2009, 12:41 amShelby says:
Said, without apparent irony, after citing to Dr. Andrew Sullivan. Priceless.
December 4, 2009, 12:46 amShelby says:
Loki, as the person who first mentioned Reagan in this thread, I hope you’ll review that comment. I never said Palin was like Reagan — I likened her to the parody-Reagan in the minds of 1980s Democrats. At the least, you can’t call that favorable to Palin.
Notwithstanding her clumsy interviews, I am convinced she’s no dummy. I think she needs practice with media of all sorts, but she also needs to spend more time in actual intellectual debate and conflict. Otherwise she’ll never reach beyond the Republican base. If she’s content with that, so be it. Despite her (to me offputting) populism I think she does ultimately have significant strengths that could benefit the country (whether as an executive or otherwise), but she’s got a lot of weaknesses to overcome first.
December 4, 2009, 12:51 amanothernotrichardaubrey says:
Orin
So you wade into this thread and your second comment is to gripe about another poster who wasn’t even addressing you.
Did Ilya hire you to play nanny in his threads? Or do you just kind of see yourself as the anti-sarcasm police for all of Volokh.com?
December 4, 2009, 12:54 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
And they prepared by electing all those white Senators and Congressmen with him, including the earlier 2006 election where the GOP became the first major party in American History to flip zero House, Senate, and Governor elections from the other party.
As I said on another thread, what is masquerading as conservative thought is neither. Palin exemplifies that. The newspapers question, OK, job interviews induce choking, it can happen. But how about the Charlie Gibson interview? Didn’t know what he was asking about with “The Bush Doctrine”. And wasn’t honest enough to admit it.
None of you would trust a neurosurgeon or even an auto mechanic who trusted so much to a general world view and knew so little and didn’t care. Yeah, we had Reagan. And you know what, check out his tax increases. I don’t think he was anybody’s great president, but even he had a better grasp that events matter and you have to adjust to them.
December 4, 2009, 12:57 amOperationCounterstrike says:
Malvolio: No, what they said about Reagan was that he was dumb. I’m saying Palin is too incoherent and nutty to be called “dumb” or “smart”. I don’t recall hearing anyone say that about RR. It was easy to learn his positions by listening to him. Even if you listen to EVERYTHING Palin says, no one can figure out where she stands on anything, except for a few very simple exceptions like pro-life and “drill baby drill”.
You said RR is recognised as “one of the greatest Presidents in history?” Nope. He is worshipped by idolators who say that, but not “recognised” in any sense. And seriously, what was “great” about him? What lasting achievements can you point to? Only one candidate: winning the Cold War. But USSR implosion would have happened without Reagan. MAYBE a little later, but only a little. I know, I was in Leningrad during the twilight. Reaganolators say he forced them to spend money on military and so hastened the implosion, but their problem was not lack of money; it was a system in which money could not function. When the stores are empty and industrial necessities are totally unavailable, money won’t help you. A friend with a job which would enable him to do illegal favors for you–a plumber who could fix your toilet without you having to wait on a list, or a butcher who could steal a piece of decent meat for you–was worth more than all the money in Russia. When it’s illegal to buy something and then sell it for more, lack of capital is not the problem. If, instead of making them spend money on the military, Reagan had GIVEN them lots of money, it would not have made any significant difference.
Re: “Why do [liberals] keep getting our asses handed to us by these idiot conservatives?”
You have ONE instance: 1980. Since then, when have conservatives scored an impressive victory? Never. 1984 the Dems offered only symbolic opposition (Mondale? LOL). 1988 GHWB won by campaigning on incumbency and negativity against an extraordinarily weak opponent. Y2K needs no comment, and for a sitting wartime president GWB did shockingly badly in 2004. What else? OK, taking Congress in 1994. But that was mostly demographic, and I’d hardly call a single victory after four decades on the bench “handing liberals their asses”.
RE: “Why are the policies foisted on the country by these idiot conservatives popular and enduring while our policies have to be continually mended-if-not-ended?”
Hee hee! What “popular and enduring” policies have conservatives enacted??? Name three, please. And, liberal policies most often have to be adjusted because they actually try to deal with problems, which change with time. The world is a messy place if you deign to live in it.
RE: “… idiot Reagan crushed genius Carter….”
1980 was a very special year. The Iran-Hostage Crisis was not Carter’s fault in any way, but it hammered him. Carter was a Dem Prez with a Dem Congress; total government control usually heralds disaster for the ruling party, especially during a poor economy. Carter was elected after Nixon/Ford; he didn’t have to be a good politician to win then. Also, Carter seemed some times to be trying to lose in 1980–his decision to require registration for the draft made liberal college students, who should have been his base, puke their guts out and run gasping to Teddy Kennedy or Jon B. Anderson (remember him?). (I hope, somehow, to get to ask JC about this decision before he dies. What was he THINKING? Did he think he could make himself look tough? With the hostage crisis in progress and against the consummate tough-guy actor? What was he THINKING?) More generally, liberalism had become flabby, anti-technology, and out of touch; Republicans seemed smarter and more realistic about war, welfare, economics, nukes, regulation, the environment, Contitutional interpretation, life in utero. Republicans also enjoyed almost exclusive mastery of emerging campaign-technology: computerized mailing lists. (Hard to believe the GOP was the MORE scientific party! Long long ago.)
AVI, thanks for your criticism. I guess the only way to find out whether or not I’m right would be to see Sarah Palin’s actual medical history. Hmmmmm.
December 4, 2009, 1:00 amOrin Kerr says:
notrichardaubrey,
You ask what my role is in the comment thread, but I’m not all that interesting. On the other hand, I’m sure VC readers would love to hear about you. What are your hopes? What are your dreams?
December 4, 2009, 1:04 amShelby says:
Really, now, in the context it was asked, I didn’t know what he meant either. There were half a dozen things that could have been covered by such a term. This is another one of those “gotcha” bits that don’t really get anything. The flub on what newspapers she reads was much more meaningful.
December 4, 2009, 1:06 amanonymous says:
Sarah has priciples which she states clearly. She is actually very intelligent and doesn’t try to over-think the solutions to our nations problems.
Get government out of the way and the people/market will figure it out a lot better than hoards of government employees.
December 4, 2009, 1:08 amEric Titmas says:
Orin Kerr says:
Richard Aubrey,
Didn’t I ban you from commenting here a while back? That’s my recollection, and your sarcastic comments here seem to suggest my apparent judgment was a wise one. (The switch to new software didn’t carry over the same list of banned commenters, so alas we need to reban our commenters.)
Really? How strange. So you have the power to ban commenters from the site, not just from your your posts? That’s too bad because you’re apparent judgement is unwise.
I just finished “Going Rogue” and it is the best book I’ve read this year.
It’s a memoir, not a position paper, so this was not the place to demonstrate issue mastery. But there will be plenty of opportunities in the next 2 years
for her to go into detail on issues – another book, op-eds, speeches, interviews, and primary debates.
She does discuss her political/governing philosophy in the book. It’s libertarian/republican. Smaller government, less spending, more freedom,
people can do better with their money than government can. Reaganism.
I find it strange that Somin and Reynolds are “at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail”. She wrote exactly the amount
December 4, 2009, 1:11 amof detail she wanted to write and that the vast majority of her readers wanted.
Sarcastro says:
And that’s all you need to fix America!
Well now that that problem’s solved, I guess this blog is over!
Next up: foreign policy!
December 4, 2009, 1:14 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: John Mark Reynolds on Sarah Palin: John Mark Reynolds of the conservative First Things blog has written a detai.. http://bit.ly/60ATNT...
December 4, 2009, 1:31 amOrin Kerr says:
Eric Titmas,
I assume you’re new to the blog, but yes, that’s always been our policy, as long as we have had comments: Any one blogger can ban any commenter, and the banning software doesn’t permit banning a commenter for only one or some bloggers’ posts. It’s interesting you find it strange, but it’s how we have done it for years. Are there other group blogs that do it differently? That would be interesting to know.
December 4, 2009, 1:31 amtheobromophile says:
Given Sarah’s track record of burrowing down and learning everything there is to know about the position that she is in or wants, I doubt that she lacks intellectual curiousity; her intellect seems of a goal-oriented, rather than general, nature.
If she’s smart, she would spend these next two years quietly learning all of the issues – economic, international, judicial, etc – that she would need in the Presidency but did not get in Alaska. If she’s smart, she would have learned from her 2008 interviews that she’s going to be held to a high standard and judged harshly. If she’s smart, she will understand that the worst thing she could do right now is to jump into the intellectual arena without being consummately prepared.
Given that, I find Prof. Somin’s criticism not so much wrong as premature. Her job right now is not to demonstrate her current capacity to lead in three years; it’s to get ready for that.
To analogise: if you bomb the LSAT the first time you take it, not for lack of brain power but for lack of familiarity, you wouldn’t go out and take it again two months later, just to throw a slightly more accurate Hail Mary pass; you would study your brains out for however long it took, just to be sure that you would ace it the next time around. Like Palin should take her intellectual credentials less seriously?
December 4, 2009, 2:02 amEric Titmas says:
Orin,
Whatever. I like Aubrey’s posts and think you’re wrong about him.
Edit my prev. post, you’re should be your.
Bleg: Does anyone know what I need to do to get the greasemonkey ignore VC commenters script working on the new site?
December 4, 2009, 2:07 amsay_what says:
“Of course, there is always the outside chance that Palin is deliberately pretending to be much more ignorant than she actually is, as Dwight D. Eisenhower did when he was president; perhaps for the purpose of getting her political enemies to underestimate her (which was one of Eisenhower’s motives).”
Say what? This is attributing waaaaay too much Machiavellian cunning to a very stupid woman. The “outside possibility” you mention is more likely to be the discovery that she’s even more dumb than we imagined and has managed to disguise the true depths of her ignorance.
Her glaring limitations don’t seem to stop right wing impressionables from projecting some sort of fantasy along the lines of *Backwoods Barbie makes it into the White House*… but to suggest that she’s dissembling i.e. pretending to be even dumber than she actually is… is too complex a concept for Palin to even grasp, let alone act out. She has a hard enough time just being herself.
The fact that Palin has made it as far as she has into American political consciousness is a damning statement about the sad state of American politics. Move on… please.
December 4, 2009, 2:29 amleo marvin says:
Orin,
Did you guys delete the comment policy from the new format, am I looking right at it and not seeing it, or something else?
December 4, 2009, 2:33 amOperationCounterstrike says:
Theobromophile wrote “…if you bomb the LSAT….”
Hey, that’s a great idea! Nip the problem in the bud, so to speak.
December 4, 2009, 3:43 amMarkV says:
It does bother me that we spend a lot of time cutting down our own. She is everything we seem to want in a conservative, except her intelligence or ‘you betcha’s. Boy, since she governed consistent with her values, we need something else to complain about. We no longer need the Democrats — we have been conditioned to cut down our own. The greatest killer of the McCain run was not liberals, it was not his adds or her red outfit. It was us. I heard fellow conservatives several times during the ’08 run state “I am going to hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain.” When Independents and Dems who we tried to persuade hear statements like that, does that inspire confidence? Does that make you say ‘gee, maybe I shouldn’t vote for this Barack guy’? When we call our OWN guy the ‘lesser of two evils’, do you think that makes them want to choose ‘our evil’ over theirs?? No, of course not.
By the litmus test discussed above, the only person with enough experience to be president will always only be the current president. Here we have a conservative. Period. She has already excited the base, yet we, not liberals, discount her. We, not they, say that is not good enough. She has already governed based on her principles, yet we, not they, now question the ‘kind’ of experience instead of the results of the policies. She speaks plainly without forked tongue yet we, not they, now question her intelligence instead of the policies discussed. We, not they, are pushing ourselves to place pedigree over principles, and eloquence over substance.
We need to stop hoping for our own conservative ‘messiah’ and be happy with the choices we do have. I would rather have an ‘average joe’ of principle over the ivy-leaguer with eloquence any day. And you know what? So would the rest of America. But keep it up! The only one that will fit the mold of the conversations above will be Mr. Obama after he cuts taxes 6 mo. prior to the ’12 election.
December 4, 2009, 3:48 amMarkV says:
Oh, and another thing. We seem to think that Palin does not know the world and ‘she is ignorant about major national political issues’. Yet last year during the Presidential Election, Sarah Palin was to deliver a speech at a rally protesting the UN appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The speech was never delivered due to ‘politics.’ Yet the Israelis thought that speech was so important, that on September 22, 2008 they printed an undelivered speech HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD! Again, we need to stop cutting down our own when our allies felt the words of an unelected second-in-charge better represented their interests than that of both the previous and current president! Here is its online location:
December 4, 2009, 3:58 amhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1023408.html
ravenshrike says:
You want an endorsement strictly about Palin eh? Fine. She’s the most honest and least corrupt politician who’s hit the national limelight within my memory (24). She has a history of fighting corruption and of attaining objectives she sets her sights on. Given the quality of her enemies, which seems to be both the vast, vast majority of the Democrat party, along with almost every single RINO in journalism out there, shows that these people see her as an instinctual threat. Libertarians however, don’t. Various Ls might not like her, but there is an absence of the hatred. This is a good thing. Moreover, unlike a certain unnamed senator, she’s not crazy, and isn’t either a racist, or so fucking stupid that she would lose content control of her own newsletter. Thusly, I believe she would make a damned good president. Especially because I get the feeling she would try and actually discern the content of a bill before signing it or vetoing it.
December 4, 2009, 4:00 amJeff Walden says:
When Palin resigned, I think she did so with the intention of getting out of elected politics entirely for the foreseeable future. If she had ambitions, resigning surely dealt a severe blow to their possibility of being achieved. Of course, going on the money-raising circuit for others will keep the name alive, but I suspect it’s more she realized she could be as effective out of office doing so as in, with the added bonus of no longer being an inarguably-assailable punching bag. (Attacking someone not already on the offensive, i.e. running for office, or already in a sought-after position of strength, i.e. an elected office, has an element of pettiness to it. And no, preaching to the choir at fundraisers on its own isn’t enough to eliminate the pettiness, although it does lessen it slightly.)
I didn’t mind her at all as a veep candidate, there being time to grow and gain further experience given the minimal official responsibilities of the position (managing a state is easily enough experience to qualify for veep, in my book). President — especially having stepped down from the governorship — is more than I’d be willing to support in a primary at this point.
December 4, 2009, 6:31 amSissy Willis says:
“People aren’t going to like Sarah in the same way that an earlier generation liked Ike”?
People like me — I happen to be a darwinian libertarian who values authenticity in a politician above all — have been inspired by Sarah Palin’s courage and integrity and commonsense understanding of the Shining City Upon a Hill from that day in late August of 2008 when she sprung full blown from the forehead of a less-than-godly John McCain.
I suspect her book is but one tactic in a larger strategy of promulgating her “vision.” See, for example, beyond the book tour, her “social media” program of Facebook essays, tweets and strategically placed op eds in the Wall Street Journal and other conservative old-media publications.
December 4, 2009, 6:42 amzuch says:
Prof. Somin:People aren’t going to like Sarah in the same way that an earlier generation liked Ike.True. But they are going to like her. A substantial part of the population (dunno if enough to garner her the nomination from the Republicans [or the Teabag Party]) will. Hofstadter was right.
Beck/Palin 2010! Or is that Palin/Beck 2010? Who’s on top, anyways?
Dream big!
Cheers,
December 4, 2009, 7:24 amRichard Aubrey says:
Orin.
Yeah, you banned me for challenging some commenters to show integrity.
What I said, when folks were roaring about rendition, was that, to show integrity, they should include “grab his ass” Gore.
Apparently such a call to show integrity was too much for you.
{OK Comments: Thanks for the reminder. Eugene has instructed us not to tolerate integrity such as yours, so it makes sense that you have been banned.]
December 4, 2009, 7:37 amDavid Nieporent says:
Oh, you got that list from Sullivan? That explains a lot. No, most of those were not “demonstrated lies.” Some of them were true; others were differences of opinion. Others were ordinary political spin. I’m sure a few of them were actually “demonstrated lies,” which makes her… a politician.
All that list shows is how desperate and obsessive Sullivan has become about conservatives, the way he used to be about liberals. (Perhaps the most extreme example, precisely because it’s so petty: “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.” In actual fact, the fraudulent list had numerous Harry Potter books on it which hadn’t been published; the fact that the first book in the series had been published is thus utterly irrelevant. And if she said “reported” — the only word of hers actually quoted — then why does the alleged refutation claim that it’s false because it wasn’t “reported in the media”? The claim that it was ‘only circulated as emails’ is actually false; it was posted on numerous websites — in other words, “reported.”)
December 4, 2009, 8:06 amrbj says:
I would much prefer a president who would leave me alone to my own devices over one who thinks he/she is so much smarter than me and thus can regulate my life.
Given that it does take some time to write a book, and Going Rogue isn’t meant to be a “here’s why you should vote for me” book, I will still withhold judgment. Though it would be nice to see if alternative Republicans would step forward.
December 4, 2009, 8:10 amJoseph Slater says:
(1) I strongly support Orin on civility matters;
(2) Interesting that none of Palin’s defender’s has responded to Randy noting, above, Palin’s apparent sympathy for the “birther” position.
December 4, 2009, 8:28 amJames T. Carrington says:
Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
December 4, 2009, 8:53 amEx parte McCardle says:
I enjoy the eschatological character of so many defenses of Palin, in this thread and elsewhere. It goes something like this: Sure, she’s not currently able (or chooses not) to articulate coherent policy positions. But she’s going to do so [sometime] in the [indefinite] future, and it’s going to be glorious.
December 4, 2009, 9:25 amRicardo says:
Agreed. Suppose she does hit the books and learn from the experts over the next few years about all the major policy issues that matter on the national level and form coherent policy positions. What’s the reason for Republicans to prefer her over, say, Mitt Romney? He’s a guy who already has that level of policy knowledge (as far as I know anyway) plus he has extensive leadership experience in both the political and business worlds. The only reason I see is identity politics: Palin the regular hometown girl versus the expensive-suit-wearing, management consultant, elitist Romney. Palin had the opportunity to get more political leadership experience before contemplating a run in 2012 and she ignored it by resigning as Governor. That’s not good for her career development to say the least. If Palin enjoys writing books, going on speaking tours and working on campaigns more than leading and governing, why doesn’t she just become a conservative pundit or cable news personality?
December 4, 2009, 9:52 amCato The Elder says:
May the Earth sunder in two and swallow me whole: I agree almost completely with Loki13 about Palin especially w.r.t. the comparisons with Reagan.
Compare this speech by Reagan to any of Palin’s televised interviews. Maybe both politicians might be called folksy in style, but that’s where the comparison must stop. Note how familiar the Great Communicator is with the policy issues and the opposing side’s legislation, how easily he marshals US history and historical figures that support him, how easily he discerns the rhetorical faults of the opposing arguments. These are all qualities I see distinctly lacking in Palin’s oeuvre. IMO, this bad yet oft-invoked comparison is incredibly demeaning to a foremost and worthy figure of modern conservativism.
Palin and her vociferous supporters leave me feeling like I’m fighting a culture war for which I really don’t care to battle. Now, if Palin is to be a talk-show host freelancer, it’s perfectly fine that she be Generalissimo of that movement; I’m not foolish enough to imagine that the sort of politics which appeal to me universally appeal to the Republicans I call my allies. She might deserve a voice, because, mostly, she and her warriors and I want most the same things. But, behind closed doors and cloistered forums such as this one, we who think of ourselves as the party of realists should be able to admit the truth to ourselves: she’s not really fit for prominent national office, where concrete decisons requiring intellectual ability become important.
December 4, 2009, 9:54 amJames T. Carrington says:
I smell a LINO here…
December 4, 2009, 9:55 amsteve s says:
I looked into her record as governor. I am not so sure about it. I am particularly concerned about the windfall profits tax. She did reduce earmarks some, but IIRC, they were still the highest per capita in the nation. She ran up debt as a mayor also.
I would have been much happier if she had stayed as governor at a time when oil prices were not sky high and the overall US economy is flagging. Almost anyone could function as governor in Alaska when oil prices are up. Governing then amounts to dividing up the spoils.
I think the POTUS influence on domestic economics is overrated. We should choose more on foreign policy issues. In this area she was clearly deficient when nominated.
December 4, 2009, 10:03 amJRL says:
“These are not fatal flaws, but she shows no signs of changing or recognizing them….”
I would suggest that she does recognize them but has no intentions of changing them because she has no intentions of running for President. She recognizes now is the time to “get paid” and is acting accordingly.
December 4, 2009, 10:33 amSteve P. says:
Aww, Prof. Kerr, don’t ban Aubrey! He’s so helpful.
Let’s say I want to advance a liberal argument, but it isn’t particularly effective. If I can frame it as a rebut to a right-wing nutcase argument, complete with invective and non sequiturs, it suddenly gains credence. So all I have to do is search for Mr. Aubrey’s posts.
December 4, 2009, 10:38 amBob from Ohio says:
I’ll respond to the Birther question.
She is not dismissing it out of hand for two reasons:
1. it’s payback:
2. many (not me) of her potential GOP supporters believe it to one degree or another and she does not want to offend them on a meaningless issue.
Neither are especially noble but very human.
Now, let’s defend the penultimate Democratic National Committee chair about Truthers when he said:
How is this different from the Palin interview?
December 4, 2009, 10:42 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Other than rejection of the old-boy network (and how much of that is because she wasn’t a member?), I don’t see this. With or without the Bridge to Nowhere, Alaska is dependent on the Federal Government (about $1.40 in Fed monies received for every $1.00 remitted) and resource extraction in a way that is unique in the nation. It would be nice to see evidence that she knows government budget and economic questions for the Lower 48, rather than the American equivalent of Dubai.
December 4, 2009, 10:42 amGordon Langston says:
What does it mean when we hear the comment that some candidate is religious.
I’d hazard a guess that if you’re supporters are both conservative and religious, then you’re religious. If they’re liberal and religious, then not really. Simple.
December 4, 2009, 11:01 amJoseph Slater says:
Bob:
I appreciate you taking on the unenviable task of trying to explain Palin’s apparent support of the “birther” position. To recap, you list two reasons she might have done it that you yourself admit aren’t honorable or intellectually defensible reasons, and then say, “hey, look over there at something Howard Dean said a long time ago.”
December 4, 2009, 11:07 amjukeboxgrad says:
ravenshrike:
sissy willis:
Palin is a habitual liar. One of many incontrovertible examples is documented here. The proof has nothing to do with Andrew Sullivan, so hiding behind him isn’t going to work.
It’s one thing to adopt the nieporent position: i.e., to claim that all politicians are liars and we should therefore not pay much attention to Palin’s lies. But it’s something else to describe her using words like “honest” and “integrity.” When you do so, you are demonstrating that you are as ignorant as her, and/or as dishonest as her.
sandy machoots, when I mentioned the above example in an earlier thread, you disputed it. I responded to you here, and then you disappeared from that thread. I wonder why.
=================
andrew:
Yes. And despite his tax increases, he also managed to triple the national debt. Yes, the GOP is certainly the party of fiscal conservatism. But only when they’re out of office. Not when they’re in it.
December 4, 2009, 11:08 amCJColucci says:
I just finished “Going Rogue” and it is the best book I’ve read this year.
Read much?
December 4, 2009, 11:10 amjukeboxgrad says:
shelby:
A nice example of rewriting history. The most important of the legal “attacks” against her was the Branchflower investigation (important in every sense; in particular, this was the matter that led to her largest legal bills). This investigation was launched on 7/28/08, a month before “her VP candidacy.” And the investigation was started by a 12-0 vote of the Alaska Legislative Council, which at the time consisted of 8 Rs and 4 Ds. This group is not accurately described as “Alaska’s left wing.”
Palin pledged to cooperate with that investigation. She reversed her position when McCain picked her. She has never explained why (various incoherent evasions don’t qualify as an explanation).
Many helpful facts can be found if you start here.
December 4, 2009, 11:29 amslimslowslider says:
nice to see you, jbg!
December 4, 2009, 11:35 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I just finished “Going Rogue” and it is the best book I’ve read this year.
My favorite part is where is find out Levi is a vampire.
December 4, 2009, 11:44 amDangerMouse says:
It is amazing that libs like Randy and jukeboxgrad would try to use the “liar” tag on Palin. Their criticism is completely unserious and transparently self-serving, because if they actually cared about the truth, they’d have NOTHING to do with the collective facade of liberalism. Nor would they be so devoted to the Democrats, and politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose middle names were “lie.”
Any lib who complains about a “liar” can be completely ignored if they supported Clinton.
That said, even I will admit that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were qualified to be president in a way that Obama clearly isn’t (which is more obvious as Obama’s poor performance shows daily). Their lies were actually a STRENGTH, in certain circumstances, to their politics. Clinton would never have been able to get the media to blame the Republicans for the government shutdown if he was interested in the truth. His lies assisted him politically. Hillary Clinton could not have even run for President if she was interested in the truth. Her whole life is a lie. That said, she was clearly more qualified than Obama based on her experience and knowledge.
So I don’t take seriously complains by libs that Palin is a “liar”, whether it relates to the Bridge to Nowhere, or anything else. Palin’s lies, to the extent that they are actually lies and not mere differences of opinion or slightly nuanced answers that are twisted by the demented ravings of an insane homosexual who fears anyone with a vagina, are not out of the ordinary for a politician. They aren’t on a level with the Clintons, and even those lies didn’t “diqualify” them from office. The Clinton’s lies may have tarnished their character, and of course that is an important evaluation of the Presidency, but Palin has character in spades that the Clintons never will have and would die for.
I still believe Somin’s comments are unserious criticism. Palin has demonstrably commented on national policy issues of the day, in a medium that permits her to express her thoughts directly to the people via Facebook. She doesn’t transmit through the MSM. I think that it’s unserious criticism to expect a personal memoir to have detailed policy analysis. I think it’s unserious criticism to make a charge that she’s ignorant without more specifics.
December 4, 2009, 11:51 amravenshrike says:
That’s the best you’ve got? The way that ethics regulation is written, any government action taken by the Governor that benefits a family member or other close relation technically violates it. Not to mention the discussion on whether it is at all ethical to leave those in power who are content with subordinates’ malicious abuse of power when it is directly within your purview to remove them.
As for you claim that it was not the left wing that launched the investigation, that’s correct. It was however, all members of the established Democrat and Republican parties who were majorly pissed about how she broke up their little fiefdoms and were attempting by any means possible to sink her.
December 4, 2009, 11:55 amSandy MacHoots says:
Loki, I’m a Reagan acolyte, and have been since he beat Pat Brown back in 1966 in the second political campaign I ever worked on. (The first was Goldwater’s.) I have no idea how old you are, but I suspect you weren’t voting back in 1980 or 1984. Go back and read the things Reagan was called by liberals, media, and “smart” conservatives. He was “ignorant,” “dumb,” a “klutz,” “evil,” a “fraud” controlled by his “puppeteers,” a “washed-up ham actor,” etc. Newspapers gleefully reported how he got confused by the difference between North Korea and North Vietnam, and was unable to name the President of France at an interview. His views were “narrow” and “dangerous” and he “pandered” to the lowest element of the electorate.
Every single thing that’s being said about Palin was said about Reagan before and during his administration (though you have to substitute “beauty queen” for “ham actor”). Only after he was gone from the scene did the media discover that he was a great president, so much better than his Republican successors . . . .
I’m not saying that Palin is Reagan. But she certainly connects to people in the same personal way he did, and she (or her advisors) are running a masterful campaign at the moment. The book tour has her on the front page of newspapers across the country. She knows the media can’t stop talking about her, but she’s not talking to them, which forces them to report on what she says on her Facebook page. She’s traveling around, meeting voters, raising money, building ties with local party leaders — all without having to take a position on any issue she doesn’t choose to. She’s in full control of her message and her exposure, which is going to be a huge advantage over the next couple of years.
December 4, 2009, 12:11 pmThe Awful Truth says:
Palin STILL has not published her medical history. Remember that strange letter from her doctor which said, essentially “She’s ok now”? I will bet any amount of money that there is something in her medical history which would kill her political career in a flash if it were published. My bet: an involuntary hospitalization for suicidal behavior/danger-to-self.
Bill Clinton never released his medical history either. My guess is he has tertiary syphillis.
Wow this is easy! And fun!
December 4, 2009, 12:11 pmfinahoy says:
I find it upsetting when I purchase a cookbook and it doesn’t tell me how to sweat copper plumbing. After all, you can’t really cook without a working water source, can you?
December 4, 2009, 12:18 pmsecond history says:
Palin was governor of the most socialist state in the Union; she imposed a confiscatory “windfall profits” tax (whatever that is) on energy companies and which the rest of us ended up paying (talk about a transfer of wealth); where in 2008 25% of the state was employed by government; where Alaska ranked third in federal spending for each dollar of federal taxes (receiving a $1.84 for every dollar in taxes); and a state which “passes the money around” each year to Alaska’s residents (again, paid by the lower 48).
So much for principle.
December 4, 2009, 12:23 pmDEO says:
I agree with LOKI13…
Palinites can only pump up Sarah’s virtues by tearing someone else DOWN or comparing…they say…
Ok, Sarah is better then having baloney stapled to your face, right???
IF you had a festering yeast infection in both ears, Sarah would be WAY better then that!!!!
PALEEZE!
December 4, 2009, 12:38 pmSarah Palin/Fabio 2012!
PersonFromPorlock says:
As long as we’re doing Ike-Sarah comparisons:
One of the little known facts about Eisenhower is that good old, avuncular, even-tempered Ike was an enthusiastic brawler in his high school days. The Summer after he was commissioned, while he was home in Abilene on extended leave, he even went around to one of the guys he’d beaten in high school and offered him a return match (declined).
So. SarahCuda, anyone?
December 4, 2009, 12:54 pmBob from Ohio says:
No, that is not correct.
“not especially noble” is not the same as “dishonorable”, at least I did not intend to say so. Honor is a lower category than noble.
Her reaction is just a natural human reaction to constant irrational attacks.
Point 2 is just basic politics. You don’t insult your supporters on trivia issues. Does a belief in where he was born cause the fact to change?
Her interview does not endorse the view, it merely declines to denounce it.
December 4, 2009, 12:55 pmThe Awful Truth says:
I like Palin. I think she has real political skills. I also feel most of the Left media’s attacks on her are unfair and borderline delusional.
But I don’t think she’d make a good President or a good candidate for President. A partial term as governor of a small state isn’t enough preparation.
I read the Palin vs Obama experience debate on this board last year. It seemed strange to me that so few posts acknowledged the obvious: that neither Obama or Palin were experienced enough to be President and that it was really weird that these two people were running on national tickets when the country was under crisis conditions.
December 4, 2009, 12:56 pmrj says:
If Sarah Palin ever becomes President and we get attacked by a volley of nuclear missiles, she will use the last few minutes of life on Earth to blame a low-level functionary and claim that radioactivity is sexist.
December 4, 2009, 1:04 pmDavid Nieporent says:
…and…
If “second history” knew what a windfall profits tax was — the media does not — he and Steve would know that Palin did not “impose” such a tax. Alaska has a severance tax, not a “windfall profits tax.”
A severance tax is not a tax on profits at all, let alone a tax on profits that are “too high” for politicians.
December 4, 2009, 1:10 pmThe Awful Truth says:
December 4, 2009, 1:28 pmDilan Esper says:
I think this post by Andrew Sullivan (actually a reader of Andrew Sullivan wrote it, he just quotes it) sums up who Palin appeals to perfectly. (For instance, anyone who pays attention to Theobromiphile’s posts here will know it describes her perfectly.)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/palins-problem-with-women.html
Here are the two nut graphs:
Sarah Palin is the peppy cheerleader in high school all the boys thought was so sweet but the girls knew was really a vicious shrew. She’s the new girl in the office who wears tight shirts and three-inch heels, is super-friendly to her male superiors, ignores the other women, and gets promoted sooner than her more capable and hard working peers. She’s the outgoing PTA mom all of the other women are scared to cross because they will find themselves put on the worst committees. Only a woman knows how to give another woman a sweet smile and at the same time cut her down to size with an artfully crafted “compliment” without male observers having a clue about what just happened. It’s like a dog whistle.
The Republican women I know who love Palin are a great deal like her–simplistic thinkers who are always feeling victimized themselves. I have a feeling that if the McCain camp had spent more than a weekend checking Palin out, a woman on his staff (my money would be on Nicole Wallace) would have figured out what kind of person she was and none of us would know her name right now.
December 4, 2009, 1:42 pmSonicfrog says:
Here is a problem I have with Palin. One of the reasons she left office before her first term had expired was that she and her family were losing money having to defend against the various frivolous lawsuits, almost all of which were dismissed. The Palins, according to Sarah, were being bled dry because the laws in Alaska prevent an elected public official from collecting a defense fund for such cases, thus they had to use their own funds to fight some of the suits. OK. I would have rather seen her continue to fight and stay in office, but that is not the issue. What bothers me tremendously is that since leaving office, she has done nothing to change either the campaign finance laws or the laws which govern when and how a sitting official in Alaskan government can be sued, to correct this apparent oversight and make it easier for her successors if they find themselves in a similar situation. You would think that, given her bulldog personality and personal experiences with this matter, she would be a very vocal and visible proponent dedicated to change the system. What it looks like to me is that, now that she doesn’t have to deal with it anymore, now that she has her couple of millions from the book bonus, well, it just doesn’t matter any more. Out of sight, out of mind.
December 4, 2009, 1:46 pmsecond history says:
If “second history” knew what a windfall profits tax was — the media does not — he and Steve would know that Palin did not “impose” such a tax. Alaska has a severance tax, not a “windfall profits tax.”
A severance tax is not a tax on profits at all, let alone a tax on profits that are “too high” for politicians.
Whatever. A tax is a tax is a tax, and something I thought Republicans opposed.
December 4, 2009, 1:48 pmShelby says:
Perhaps you thought wrong.
December 4, 2009, 2:03 pmDotar Sojat says:
Gee, Dilan, the man/person with the Palin uterus fetish is your ultimate source? My.
December 4, 2009, 2:22 pmGreg says:
All I need to know about Sarah is that she is willing, and able, to take on the elites who are bent on ruining the country. Another Alaska woman took on the elites in 1945, as follows:
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Elizabeth Peratrovich: Her Words Helped Pass Anti-Discrimination Bill
In 1945 Alaska citizens could address the Territorial Senate. The public was allowed to speak from the gallery, and Native civil rights activists Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich were in attendance daily during the floor debate on an anti-discrimination bill.
From the official Senate Record:
Sen. Frank Whaley: “I am also against the Equal Rights bill. I personally would prefer not to have to sit next to these Natives in a theatre. Why, they smell bad….”
Sen. O.D. Cochran: “I am personally assailed by Senator Whaley’s remarks. I stand in support of the Equal Rights bill. Discrimination does exist.”
Sen. Allen Shattuck: “This legislation is wrong. Rather than being brought together, the races should be kept further apart. Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites, with 5000 years of recorded civilization behind us.”
Elizabeth Peratrovich: “I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind the gentlemen, with 5000 years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights. When my husband and I came to Juneau and sought a home in a nice neighborhood where our children could play happily with our neighbor’s children, we found such a house and arranged to lease it. When the owners learned that we were Indian, they said no. Would we be compelled to live in the slums?”
There was silence in the hall.
Sen. Shattuck: “Will the law eliminate discrimination?”
Elizabeth Peratrovich: “Do your laws against larceny, rape, and murder prevent these crimes? No law will eliminate crimes, but at least you, as legislators, can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak of your intent to help overcome discrimination. There are three kinds of persons who practice discrimination. First, the politician who wants to maintain an inferior minority group so that he can always promise them something, second, the ‘Mr. and Mrs. Jones’ who aren’t quite sure of their social position, and who are nice to you on one occasion, and can’t see you on others, depending on whom they are with, and third, the great superman, who believes in the superiority of the white race. This super race attitude is wrong and forces our fine Native people to be associated with less than desirable circumstances. “
Applause from the gallery and from the Senate floor.
The following afternoon’s newspaper reported Elizabeth Peratrovich “climaxed the hearing with a biting condemnation of the “super race” attitude. It was the most inspired performance of any witness to yet appear before this session and there were a few red senatorial ears as she regally left the chambers.
On Feb 8, 1945, the Senate voted 11-5 in favor of the bill and Gov Ernest Gruening signed it into law Feb 16. It was the first anti-discrimination law in the nation.
Years later Gruening said that without Elizabeth Peratrovich’s eloquent testimony the measure would not have passed.
From Haa Kusteeyi Our Culture: Klingit Life Stories by Nora Dauenhauer
.
December 4, 2009, 2:32 pmDilan Esper says:
Gee, Dilan, the man/person with the Palin uterus fetish is your ultimate source? My.
Read my post again. That was written by one of his readers. He just ran it.
December 4, 2009, 2:43 pmrj says:
Greg: Big diff. Palin isn’t fighting against discrimination and racism. She’s cashing in on the subset of white male (and to a much lesser extent, female) society that organizes its political philosophy around a set of grievances and scapegoats. And not that eloquently, either.
December 4, 2009, 2:43 pmFury says:
Jukeboxgrad, how goes it? I miss your posts – and perspectives – on VC!
December 4, 2009, 2:51 pmXanthippas says:
The problem is her character, of which this failure is a reflection.
December 4, 2009, 2:57 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
My takeaway from Palin’s book, is politically she’s a good government advocate. She got into it because she felt the current guys were corrupt, and she felt like she could do a cleaner job. In other words, the old boys were acting in bad faith, and she wouldn’t. I like her track record.
(A good government advocate, as I see it: if We the People decide to give a job to government, and grant it powers, then let’s make sure that the government does that job well, without corruption, with integrity, and with economy. Do not abuse the public trust, and don’t waste or steal the public’s wealth.)
An excellent characteristic for a politician, unfortunately all too rare.
Her sentiments, and how they inform her decisions on “what should the government do”, are not as clear. She’s a believer in American exceptionalism, hard work, self-reliance, family, church: her words are backed by her actions. Never a bad place to start from.
The Federal government has become Leviathan. If you have not yet lost heart that the Blessings of Liberty are more desirable than the security of Leviathan, then you know the beast needs to be tamed, shrunk, diminished. Public law needs to be changed so that whole departments of Leviathan are canceled, and the problems that these Federal organizations attempt to ameliorate are once again left to the States or the People to deal with. Of the current National office aspirants, who wants to do that? What I’m looking for in Sarah Palin is does she have the strength and tenacity to do so, because Leviathan will fight back, and it will fight dirty, without honor, without principles. And she already has scars from it.
December 4, 2009, 3:13 pmBob from Ohio says:
Neither did Obama.
My guess for him is cocaine use. He is skinny.
This is fun!
December 4, 2009, 4:00 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Bob from Ohio –
If the birther stuff is really payback, how does that fit with Gov. Palin’s oft-proclaimed Christian faith? What she said doesn’t fit with what she professes to believe. She’s not the first politian to capitalize on her faith and then ignore it when she feels like it, but that would be not just less than honorable or less than noble; it would be sin, and wrong.
I’m from Ohio too.
December 4, 2009, 4:08 pmtheobromophile says:
Dilan: that’s just beyond awful. Seriously.
The problem with liberal ad hominems (“I know what you are deep down, super-secretly thinking, really, I do!!!11!”) that they are irrefutable. As no evidence is presented for them, that evidence cannot be analysed (and found wanting). As there are no standards for analysis, opponents cannot bring forth their own arguments to be judged under those standards.
I’m a woman. I’m a woman with ridiculously good intuition about other women. I’m hardly a “simplistic” thinker (or any of the other incredibly sexist attacks that you liberal men so love to make against women who
forget their placeare conservative). I was the uber-geek growing up – ignored by boys, liked by girls.And I adore Sarah.
If we’re going to engage in arm chair psychology, let’s at least do it with a modicum of accuracy: impotent beta-males hate Sarah, because they know that women like her don’t sleep with men like them. She’s just not going to giggle and spread her legs in response to “Baby, I’m pro-choice,” and some men just can’t handle that.
December 4, 2009, 4:20 pmsteve s says:
David N-
”
Sigh, forgive me for not being more precise as yes, I know it is called a severance tax. Follows..
So to be precise, she pushed for and had passed a law which increases the amount of severance tax based upon the profits so that if profits rise, the state gets a higher percentage of that profit as a tax. A severance tax. In common parlance, the rest of the world calls that a windfall profits tax. Dont make me have to go look up the bill again and post the actual numbers.
December 4, 2009, 4:21 pmrb1971 says:
theobromophile wrote:
The problem with liberal ad hominems (“I know what you are deep down, super-secretly thinking, really, I do!!!11!”) that they are irrefutable.
…and then…
Let’s be real about what’s going on here: impotent loser men hate Sarah, because they know that women like her don’t sleep with men like them. She’s just not going to giggle and spread her legs in response to “Baby, I’m pro-choice,” and some men just can’t handle that.
Were you being ironic on purpose and I just missed it or is your irony detector broken today?
I don’t really care about Sarah Palin, except that there seems to be a bit of a charismatic cult around her. Hasn’t there already been an unsuccessful Republican presidency this decade where the candidate was a great guy who anyone would probably love to have a beer with but was unqualified for the job?
So you have to have charisma and skill to do the job, and I just don’t see where she has demonstrated either the right skill set OR the intellectual curiosity indicating she would or could learn the skill set. Bush had charisma but little-to-no skill (but in fairness did get slightly better his second term), Obama has less charisma than Bush but more skill (but is so far not learning on the job which could be his downfall). Do you really want someone with arguably less charisma than either but also less skill?
December 4, 2009, 4:35 pmDilan Esper says:
If we’re going to engage in arm chair psychology, let’s at least do it with a modicum of accuracy: impotent beta-males hate Sarah, because they know that women like her don’t sleep with men like them. She’s just not going to giggle and spread her legs in response to “Baby, I’m pro-choice,” and some men just can’t handle that.
Theo, this is exactly what Sullivan’s reader is talking about. You have a huge victim complex, and Palin appeals to conservative women with huge victim complexes. She also appeals to men– not me, but lots of men.
But she does not appeal to women who don’t have the big-time victim complex that you do. If you are an accomplished woman who isn’t wallowing in her own alleged victimhood, Palin doesn’t have any appeal.
December 4, 2009, 4:55 pmDilan Esper says:
theo:
What rb said.
December 4, 2009, 4:57 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
No, a windfall profit tax is when a business makes a profit based on an event entirely outside of their control, the government says “Hey, that’s free money, it wasn’t earned, so it belongs to the people, not to the shareholders”.
The quasi-cyclical price of oil is not a windfall. The price of exploration for new energy sources is so high, energy firms need to make lots of profit when the price is high, because when the price goes low, they won’t be making jack squat. If you confiscate the fat years, all that’s left will be lean years forever.
Our elected public servants are so wise, wise as vampires. They know just how much blood to suck from their victims/hostages, to keep themselves healthy and virile, while keeping their victims barely alive. A “windfall profit tax” is yet another example of government parasitism. When the host finds some food and gets temporarily healthier, the vampires get extra sucks.
A severance tax is based on a formula. It could be the quantity of oil pumped, the price of oil, the price of salt in Timbuktu, a percentage of profit above a threshold. When the oil is under private land, the energy company pays a royalty. When it’s under public land, they pay a severance tax.
December 4, 2009, 4:58 pmSuzy says:
Palin is not a good candidate for several reasons. The most important one is that she’s a quitter who didn’t even make it through her first term as the Governor of Alaska. If dealing with ethics complaints was just too tough, how could she ever handle the challenges of the Presidency? The constant concerns about what other nations and interests are doing, the constant difficulties of passing a legislative agenda, the constant criticism from the press and the political opposition? Palin would crumble in a second under that pressure.
Palin talks a big game, but when it came time to play the real one as Gov. of Alaska she lost her spine. She complains like a victim when an interview goes poorly, or when someone asks her a question she considers unfair. Her memoir really reinforces this. She was out to settle scores in that book, and on a very petty level most of the time. This is a small person not suited for the big challenge of the biggest office. She’s having public squabbles with Levi Johnston, and still trying to stick the dagger into people nobody even knows or cares about, who wronged her years ago in Alaska.
The other crucial reason that Republicans should reject her as a candidate is that women do not and will not support her in sufficient numbers to win the general election. Even Republican women do not support her strongly; most of her support comes from the most conservative part of the base, and mostly from men. This is not a good recipe for success. Republicans need suburban women, especially, to win the election. I hear complaints about how their dislike is motivated by jealousy or something. Whatever, but that isn’t going to win her the election. Really, I think it’s that the ladies have an easier time seeing why she’s a phony, all puffed up with little substance. The guys aren’t getting past the starbursts or something!
December 4, 2009, 5:01 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
rb1971,
Bush had charisma but little-to-no skill (but in fairness did get slightly better his second term), Obama has less charisma than Bush but more skill (but is so far not learning on the job which could be his downfall).
That’s right. GWB’s famous strong suit is his charisma. A natural leader, an inspiring speaker, the man crowds are swept away by. Whereas Obama is, of course, notoriously incapable of instilling enthusiasm in people.
Dilan Esper,
What rb said.
If you say so.
December 4, 2009, 5:09 pmMartha says:
That was my question also.
December 4, 2009, 5:12 pmSuzy says:
I want to separate this comment about Palin’s pregnancy from the others, because it doesn’t belong in the same group. I don’t know why people are doubting that the child is hers; that seems crazy. However, one thing is true: either Palin is B.S.ing us about the birth, or she exhibited such poor decision-making in that situation that I really would not trust her to lead me out of a burning building. I am pro-life, and I honestly do not understand a pro-life woman who would take those kinds of wild risks with her pregnancy. She’s at an advanced age with a special-needs baby, and she thinks her water is breaking, and doesn’t want to call the doctor, and then doesn’t want to go home, and then takes two very long plane rides, and doesn’t want to go to any hospital to be checked along the way? It’s just plain ludicrous. Can anyone here say they would honestly make these choices for their own baby, or their own wife and child? The alternative is that she was just exaggerating and BSing about it. Well, I don’t want a person who would do that to be in a position of great authority. I think this also explains some small measure of why women don’t really trust her. Women who have had babies hear this story and think she has a screw loose.
December 4, 2009, 5:16 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
To Martha, Dilan, rb1971,
Did everyone miss theobromophile’s
If we’re going to engage in arm chair psychology, let’s at least do it with a modicum of accuracy ?
Seems to me that she underlined the “irony.” You can’t claim to catch her out when she’s pre-empted you.
December 4, 2009, 5:18 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
The “quitter” knock is so typical, ignore her words, and sling mud. Palin is a good government advocate. Alaska law, and Palin’s unique situation, allowed the dishonorable anti-Palinistas a means to destroy both her personally, and destroy her effectiveness as a governor. Everybody said, go home Sarah Palin, be a good governor, show us some results, come back later. The lefties said, not if we can help it. Palin said, screw this, I’m not going to let the dishonorable partisans mess with Alaska. If I can’t do my job well from the distractions (which hurts Alaska), and my family is being hurt, I’m outta here. I’ll find another way to help. (It’s the equivalent of that martial art where instead of fighting against the opponents moves, you go with them). Those frivolous ethics assaults were never going to stop, there’s plenty of partisans out there that don’t care about good government.
Maybe the Alaska ethics law is normally OK, and for normal times it works fine. The knock that she doesn’t campaign to change it now, so she’s just another self-serving politician, is also spurious. A law shouldn’t necessarily be changed just because of one undesirable circumstance.
December 4, 2009, 5:22 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
It’s not lack of precision, but lack of accuracy that’s at issue. A severance tax is not a tax on profits at all; an oil company can lose money in a given year and yet still owes the severance tax.
On the other hand, a “windfall profits” tax is a tax based on the demagogic notion that some amount of profit is “too much,” and so the company should be penalized.
December 4, 2009, 5:31 pmSuzy says:
John, how is it “slinging mud” to point out that she quit her job? I consider that job essential to her resume, if she wants to be president. I think her reasons for quitting were weak. She’s going to have to deal with much worse opposition than she faced in Alaska, if she wants to lead the whole nation. So, I listened to her explanation and I found it incredibly weak; by extension, I find her weak as well. I’m not interested in a weak President.
December 4, 2009, 5:35 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Shorter Suzy:
Men are animals who think only with their little head. Only women have the capability to wisely judge character and vote carefully.
Your Freudian slip is showing.
December 4, 2009, 5:39 pmDilan Esper says:
Seems to me that she underlined the “irony.” You can’t claim to catch her out when she’s pre-empted you.
Michelle:
Not really. That last paragraph of hers is what Theo (and the Republican female friends of Andrew Sullivan’s reader) actually believes.
Here’s another example. Rachel Larrimore, a pro-life conservative woman who writes for doublex.com, admitting in her “I’m getting off the Palin bus” post that she liked Palin mostly because she identified with her:
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/i-quit-you-sarah-palin
December 4, 2009, 5:42 pmDangerMouse says:
Obama has less charisma than Bush but more skill (but is so far not learning on the job which could be his downfall).
HUH? Obama has LESS charisma than Bush? Less charisma? The man who is the most eloquent speaker on the planet, the most powerful author since Caesar, the ONE, has less charisma that Chimpy McHaliburton who couldn’t string together two words? Are you kidding me? Obama was sold as intelligent, charismatic, and everything that Bush was not.
And he has MORE skill than Bush? Obama can’t even get Democrats to vote on cap and trade, and has to beg Republicans to support a health care plan with supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Bush was able to basically pass his agenda with a small Republican lead, and a flipped Senate for several years. Obama has more skill than Bush?
The only way Obama has more skill than Bush is in reading a teleprompter. But then again, you said he wasn’t charismatic.
December 4, 2009, 5:52 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Resigning from her position because she decides it’s best for Alaska, is weak and weakness, only if politicians should or do put their self-interest first, and the public interest somewhere lower on their priority list.
Perhaps we are so conditioned by the behavior of our elected public servants, especially now that they all come from gerrymandered districts and are no longer responsive to the people, is that when we see a politician acting in the public interest, we don’t believe it.
I don’t know, I saw her resignation as being consistent with her principles, and I was thrilled to see a very rare example of a politician putting the public interest first. Most politicians see themselves as the “indispensable person”. Palin says “if I die, I die”. Excellent.
Maybe it’s this: she does not seem to be a normal politician. Is that bad? Maybe, just maybe, it’s good. Why not wait and see, we’ve got three years to find out, let’s enjoy the ride, don’t tell me the butler did it when the book is just starting.
And also, what’s with this fixation on her personality, she’s a phony, a midnight backstabber. We have a high tolerance for politicians as private moral cripples (cough cough Kenne cough cough).
December 4, 2009, 6:05 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Dilan,
That last paragraph of hers is what Theo (and the Republican female friends of Andrew Sullivan’s readers) actually believes.
I’ll let theobromophile speak for herself, but confess that certain subtle internal evidence in her comment (call it “tone,” let’s say) leads me to believe that she’s just messin’ with ya.
As for the unnamed Republican female friends of one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers, maybe they really are all simplistic dimwits full of self-pity, but you’ll forgive my wanting more than a hostile third-hand report before concluding so.
As for me . . . well, I confess I really did want to like Sarah Palin, purely because she pisses so many of the right people off in the right ways. I mean, seriously, there are an awful lot of people who are ordinarily hypersensitive about “prejudice,” but who not only reflexively go “Ewwww” when confronted with a moose-hunting, beauty-pageant-winning, eventually-graduated-from-college-after-four-transfers, married-to-a-commercial-fisherman mother of five who nonetheless wants to be in politics, but don’t see this visceral reaction for what it is and continue to think themselves admirably fair-minded.
I have damn near nothing in common with Palin, being a decidedly unstylish, unathletic, childless bookworm who dislikes hunting and has never been north of Edinburgh, but I like seeing people’s prejudices exposed and confounded. Which, of course, is why I wish Palin had proved impressive under closer examination. Watching prejudices being reinforced is just depressing.
December 4, 2009, 6:13 pmDilan Esper says:
I’ll let theobromophile speak for herself, but confess that certain subtle internal evidence in her comment (call it “tone,” let’s say) leads me to believe that she’s just messin’ with ya.
No, Michelle. I’ve been around the block a few times with Theo. That’s what she really believes– that women like her are constantly being punished and denigrated and looked down upon by people with my political leanings.
As for me . . . well, I confess I really did want to like Sarah Palin, purely because she pisses so many of the right people off in the right ways. I mean, seriously, there are an awful lot of people who are ordinarily hypersensitive about “prejudice,” but who not only reflexively go “Ewwww” when confronted with a moose-hunting, beauty-pageant-winning, eventually-graduated-from-college-after-four-transfers, married-to-a-commercial-fisherman mother of five who nonetheless wants to be in politics, but don’t see this visceral reaction for what it is and continue to think themselves admirably fair-minded.
Your comment is honest and I appreciate it, Michelle. But that’s, again, exactly what Sullivan’s reader points out. Palin’s appeal is entirely based on affinity, not qualification. In your case, you liked it that she pissed the left off. In Rachel Larrimore’s case, she liked that Palin is pro-life and had a big family. But I think Sullivan’s reader got at a lot of the support (including Theo) as well.
December 4, 2009, 6:22 pmMartha says:
I wasn’t claiming to catch her out. I found what Theo said to be offensive and wondered whether she was being offensive on purpose.
I think you have a good point, Suzy. Although the suggestion that Trig isn’t Palin’s baby is tinfoil-hat league, I don’t understand why an expectant mother would take such risks. Even allowing for the fact that Palin had had four previous babies (and probably took this pregnancy in stride), her behavior seems foolhardy. It’s one thing to be surprised by a fast labor, and another thing to deliberately put yourself on an airplane, out of reach of emergency medical services.
December 4, 2009, 6:24 pmDangerMouse says:
That’s what she really believes– that women like her are constantly being punished and denigrated and looked down upon by people with my political leanings.
That’s because they ARE. Have you been in a coma for the last 8 years? Are you unaware of the existence of Daily Kos? Sheesh. Libs have cornered the market on crass partisan snobbery.
December 4, 2009, 6:31 pmmariner says:
I’m not disposed to take seriously comment from someone who claims to have carefully read Palin’s book and is “still at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail”.
Although her book is expressly an autobiography and not a treatise in political philosophy, she provided several examples of her philosophy:
– Root out corruption without regard to the person or political party involved.
– Reduce the cost and scope of government generally.
– Energy independence, both by exploiting the resources we already know we have and investing in technology.
December 4, 2009, 6:33 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Dilan Esper,
Palin’s appeal is entirely based on affinity, not qualification.
Only if you define “affinity” extra-expansively, so as to include “people I dislike dislike her.” As for “qualification” . . . I suppose the best way to put it is that part of my sympathy for Palin stems from the fact that so many people misconstrue what is actually “affinity” (similarity of background, educational history, profession) as “qualification.” It’s the sort of perspective that sees Biden, say, as “qualified” just because of where he studied and what he has done for a living. But if Palin had seriously proposed partitioning Iraq, don’t you think it would be put down to the “Gee, I can see Russia from my porch!” naivete and stored in the same joke file, not considered (briefly) seriously and then decorously forgotten?
December 4, 2009, 6:39 pmBob from Ohio says:
Beats me, I’m not a Christian. Though lots of good religious people of all faiths sometimes fail to live 100% by their faith. In fact, I’d say most.
Doesn’t make them hypocritical, just human.
December 4, 2009, 6:40 pmDEO says:
I don’t think questioning Palin’s Trig pregnancy is TIN FOIL HAT LEAGUE. I know I will get jumped on for this, BUT WHY WOULD Palin get on a plane away from doctors? that is a valid question you pose.
Her almost son-in-law CLAIMS Palin tried to get him and Bristol to let HER adopt THEIR child, saying NO ONE WOULD KNOW…. Levi may be a loser, but i think him a sort of hapless loser not prone to lying, just sort of flung into it. I think he just said what he saw and heard. Palin certainly makes A POINT to respond to every little thing the teenager says about her. Levi opens his mouth and Palin issues a press release by that morning! levi is not mentioned in Palin’s book, like he never happened, you know he has no chance of seeing his only son. Palin has written him off, he DOES NOT exist in her fantasy world….
and Palin’s IS a fantasy world.
December 4, 2009, 6:45 pmyesterday when she said birth certs were fair game she claims SHE PROVIDED Trig’s, when she did no such thing.. OUTRIGHT LIE. WHY????
Bob from Ohio says:
Is it shocking she wanted to give birth at home?
Plus, she was not flying in a rickity DC-3 in Africa, but modern jets in the US. She was closer to help if needed than a lot of women who live in Alaska and not on a plane.
She was in touch with her doctor contrary to your assertion.
Finally, she had four babies before, maybe she a better feel for her own body than you, woman or otherwise.
Why don’t you explain how a genetic defect like Down’s Syndrome would be affected by labor problems?
Trig was no more at risk than any other baby, which is to say very little.
December 4, 2009, 6:52 pmJohnFN says:
I think if Palin is copying anyone, it’s George W. Bush rather than Ike. The media always aped Bush over his lack of intellectual bona fides, yet surprisingly he fared well in most of his debate appearances, be it Dr. Al Gore or John FN Kerry.
Much of Reynolds analysis I agree with, in fact he lists much of why I’m staying away from Palin in the primary if she runs. But I don’t find her supposed lack of intellectual curiosity to be a particular worry (I think most politicians happen to be idiots), but more or less her lack of policy or interest in establishing it. Instead of working toward an actual set of ideas to build a campaign around, she’s more content to focus building her cult of personality much like Glenn Beck or any random talk show host. If she isn’t willing to take herself seriously as a serious politician why should I?
Haven’t read her book, but it seems more like a riposte of media attacks and her critics. Again, nothing substantial, if the reviews I’ve read are an indication. Give me something concrete, maybe I’ll come her way. Until then, I’m reading for someone with more substance rather than st yle
December 4, 2009, 6:54 pmDilan Esper says:
But if Palin had seriously proposed partitioning Iraq, don’t you think it would be put down to the “Gee, I can see Russia from my porch!” naivete and stored in the same joke file, not considered (briefly) seriously and then decorously forgotten?
Biden has his issues, but I don’t think the partition plan was nearly as bad as you are claiming. This was pre-surge, and there were all sorts of reasons to think that the Bush Administration was lying to the public, desperate not to have to admit that it created a cluster**** in Iraq. In that context, using a partition as an excuse to define and limit our role was not stupid at all.
More generally, Biden has been a congressman or senator for over three decades. He knows a heck of a lot about public policy, and especially a heck of a lot about how Congress and Washington works. He has his share of gaffes, but he also has something on the order of 1,000 times the qualifications of Palin to serve in a high position in the federal government.
I do think that Palin has been unfairly treated in one major respect. A lot of the commentary about her is trashy and sexist. Her hair, her clothes, her makeup, whether she’s able to take care of her kids, the sex life of her daughter, etc., are all things that would be off limits if she were a male. That aspect of the coverage of her is sickening and unfair.
December 4, 2009, 7:08 pmGreg says:
A culture that focuses on “scapegoats and grievances?” Well, isn’t that the Democratic party? Most Democrats focus on what they can promise some constituency. Sarah makes no such promises. Our Constitution is not riddled with promises, other than the promise of individual liberty and freedom. Something government can take away, and seems dedicated towards. Someone needs to say, stop!
Since she is not running for any office and need please no constituency her presence is welcomed by such as me.
To tag her with the abortion issue is wrong. Seems to me she believes that women should have the choice to have or have not, namely she stands in the way of mandatory abortions, something we would see were it not for Roe v Wade.
December 4, 2009, 7:08 pmtheobromophile says:
rb1971: it was deliberate.
Dilan: that I know that you’re a total asshole does not mean that I have a victim complex. Here’s a little clue for you: if you can’t argue against my ideas without attacking me, it’s because you are wrong.
December 4, 2009, 7:13 pmMartha says:
Wanting to give birth at home (or in a hospital near home) is not shocking. Putting yourself and your baby at risk to accomplish that is questionable judgment.
Modern jets in U.S. airspace are still pretty far from the emergency room. That’s one reason that women, including women in the lower 48, are advised not to fly during advanced stages of pregnancy.
??? I made no assertions about her doctor.
I’m sure she has a feel for her own body. But having a feel for one’s own body doesn’t enable one to predict the future. If she had been unlucky enough to feel something go terribly wrong during the long flight, she would be far from help.
Fortunately, everything turned out ok for Palin and Trig. Perhaps the happy ending shows that her judgment was correct and the advice that pregnant women not travel after 36 weeks is overcautious. But I think it’s foolhardy to board an 8-10 hour flight after showing signs of early labor, and I suspect I’m not alone.
December 4, 2009, 7:19 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Dilan Esper,
Biden has his issues, but I don’t think the partition plan was nearly as bad as you are claiming. This was pre-surge, and there were all sorts of reasons to think that the Bush Administration was lying to the public, desperate not to have to admit that it created a cluster**** in Iraq. In that context, using a partition as an excuse to define and limit our role was not stupid at all.
Not sure I follow you. “Using a partition as an excuse to define and limit our role” sounds to me like “screw the Iraqis; let’s just cut our own losses and let them all kill one another.” “Define our role” as in “This is our conquered territory to slice up however we see fit.” “Limit” it as in “Sure, this means a protracted and nasty civil war, and probable genocide, but that’s just not gonna be Our Problem anymore. Let’s scram while we can.”
I repeat that if Palin had said it, it would have been evidence that she was completely incurious about places farther away than she could see from her porch.
(I like “This was pre-surge” — Biden, of course, opposed the surge and pronounced it a failure as long as it was plausible to do so.)
December 4, 2009, 7:24 pmtheobromophile says:
Thank you, Michelle.
And Dilan, baby? I admire your relentlessness – no amount of objective evidence that your characterisations of me are wrong will dissuade you from the noble quest of exposing the truth! – but dahling, if you keep this up, you’re just a good nickname away from joining the Truthers and the Birthers in conspiracy-nutjob land.
December 4, 2009, 7:25 pmDilan Esper says:
that I know that you’re a total [bleep] does not mean that I have a victim complex. Here’s a little clue for you: if you can’t argue against my ideas without attacking me, it’s because you are wrong.
Theo, in several weeks of arguing with me, you have (1) constantly referred to yourself, your background, your supposed credentials, and how you are so amazingly brilliant, and (2) constantly complained about how folks with my ideological predilection constantly dismiss and disrespect your supposed brilliance and credentials.
Sullivan’s commenter says that she knows a bunch of women who say the exact same things that you do. And they, like you, are members of the Sarah Palin fan club.
I’m sorry things hit so close to home, but if you don’t want people to call you out, instead of whining or talking about yourself and how brilliant you are and how disrespected you are, you might learn some humility, learn that lots of people have a lot more expertise than you do, and learn that you aren’t that special.
As I said, Sullivan’s commenter nailed you cold.
December 4, 2009, 7:26 pmDilan Esper says:
Not sure I follow you. “Using a partition as an excuse to define and limit our role” sounds to me like “screw the Iraqis; let’s just cut our own losses and let them all kill one another.”
Michelle, bear in mind that we had no national interests in Iraq whatsoever and the war needlessly slaughtered over 4,000 brave American servicemembers. Whether or not getting the heck out served the interests of the Iraqis was not something we should care about.
(I like “This was pre-surge” — Biden, of course, opposed the surge and pronounced it a failure as long as it was plausible to do so.)
The surge was only successful in that it made the Iraq War less bad. And even though I don’t mind that it happened, George W. Bush was so untrustworthy and incompetent at that point that it was perfectly legitimate to just say we weren’t going to trust him to lead the troops even into a military parade at that point.
December 4, 2009, 7:32 pmbyomtov says:
there are an awful lot of people who are ordinarily hypersensitive about “prejudice,” but who not only reflexively go “Ewwww” when confronted with a moose-hunting, beauty-pageant-winning, eventually-graduated-from-college-after-four-transfers, married-to-a-commercial-fisherman mother of five who nonetheless wants to be in politics, but don’t see this visceral reaction for what it is and continue to think themselves admirably fair-minded.
Gee. Some people have visceral reactions to politicians. There’s a scoop. There are lots of people who claim to be race-blind but reflexively go “Ewwww” when confronted with a black HLS graduate with a Kenyan father and a funny name.
December 4, 2009, 7:35 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I doubt if you will find many liberals opposed to the rooting out of corruption, even regardless of party. (Since you probably don’t visit Daily Kos, take my word, Rep. Jefferson got nothing but condemnation there.)
Reducing the cost and scope of government generally is meaningless nonsense. Hard as it may be to believe, liberals do not believe in raising the cost of government for its own sake. Let’s hear not generalities but specifics about where and how the cost of government will be reduced. Oh, wait, get your Government hands of my Medicare. (It goes without saying that the Republican Party, although perhaps not Palin, have very dirty hands on this issue: c.f. Medicare D.)
Energy independence? Alaskan oil (drill-baby-drill) is a literal drop in the bucket. We know from VP Cheney that energy conservation is a mere matter of personal morality. Has Palin repudiated that? Why do I suspect that Palin’s “solutions” to energy independence are mere “and a pony” wishful-thinking nonsense. Is there any sign that Palin has real, quantified knowledge on this issue, or just one afore-referenced catchy slogan.
December 4, 2009, 7:42 pmArthurKirkland says:
Roman Hruska would have been a huge Palin fan.
December 4, 2009, 8:02 pmtheobromophile says:
Dilan: I don’t care whether or not you think that I’m brilliant, rather than reasonably intelligent, but I’m not the simple-minded, anti-science fool you make me out to be. That you use all sorts of unsubstantiated, sexist attacks on the soundness of my mind and get bitch-slapped in return isn’t my problem.
Now, for the Dilan Esper Dictionary
anti-science, adj.: characteristic of any member of the pro-life movement, no matter how well versed in any scientific field.
arrogant, adj.: used to describe any woman who does not unconditionally accept Dilan’s assessment of her intelligence.
feminism, n.: the political philosophy that has a lot to do with sex and abortion, but nothing to do with advancing women’s place in the world, improving access to education and opportunities, or acknowledging them as equals to men.
logic: [No definition found]supposed credentials: any actual fact used by a conservative that ceases to have any basis in reality when used to rebut a liberal.
December 4, 2009, 8:07 pmtheobromophile says:
Andrew: Palin has explained her position (albeit not in much detail) here. If you’re interested, you can certainly find out more.
Other Volokh readers may be able to help with some knowledge of Alaska’s use of alternative energy (currently 20% of its energy use) and Palin’s commitment to more alternative energy.
December 4, 2009, 8:17 pmravenshrike says:
Now now TBP, arrogance is not in and of itself bad. Annoying and slightly rude, sure, depending on the situation. Dilan’s conceit that his own pop psych notions actually mean something useful, and that he knows anything substantive about a person after talking with them for less than six months in comment threads over the internet is much, much worse, and is indicative that he’s talking out of his ass.
December 4, 2009, 8:29 pmDilan Esper says:
That you use all sorts of unsubstantiated, sexist attacks on the soundness of my mind and get bitch-slapped in return isn’t my problem.
Theo, your own dictionary defines “sexist” as “anyone who refutes something Theo says”.
December 4, 2009, 8:46 pmMatthew Carberry says:
As far as pork goes, bear in mind that in Alaska, as in most of the Western states, most of the land in the state (67% for AK) is actually owned, and thus the responsibility of, the federal government, compare that with the average back East, for example Illinois and Delaware, where the numbers are closer to 1%. Hard for a state to support itself when it can’t control its own lands for its own economic benefit.
The governor has no control over what the Feds do or don’t do, spend or don’t spend, on their land in AK. Further, the dollars spent/taxes sent argument is puerile anyway. Fed. dollars aren’t allocated per capita but by costs to the Fed. as determined by amount of Fed. responsibility in that state including military, highway, education, land (see above) and other, often statuatory/Constitutionally-driven requirements.
As an example, the cost to maintain a given mile of highway in Illinois is much less due to economies of scale, climate, access and a host of logistical issues like shipping cost of materials and labor differentials. There’s a lot more to look at than simply comparing dollars.
Further, the state Constitution requires that the resources of the state (on state land) be utilized to benefit the citizens of the state as a whole. We chose to do that by using the oil/gas leases and severance taxes to fund state government, investing the surpluses in a Permanent Fund Investment account to do so in the future if/when those revenue streams stop. To further fulfill the Constitutional mandate (and sell the voters on saving vice blowing the cash) the Dividend program was created to distribute to the citizens their share of the state’s resource income from the fund after inflation-proofing and expenses.
The state is a corporation managing our assets, we are the shareholders.
December 4, 2009, 8:54 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
byomtov,
Gee. Some people have visceral reactions to politicians. There’s a scoop.
I have visceral reactions to politicians qua politicians, byomtov, but they don’t cause me to break out in hives at the presence of one politician in particular, any more than my dislike of olives makes me quail at the presence of one particular olive in someone else’s salad.
There are lots of people who claim to be race-blind but reflexively go “Ewwww” when confronted with a black HLS graduate with a Kenyan father and a funny name.
And there are lots of people (including, again, me) who wanted to like Obama precisely because there were people who reflexively disliked him for the wrong reasons.
byomtov, people who harbor racial prejudice today generally feel obliged to disguise or deny it. People who think someone with Palin’s background can safely be assumed to be a provincial hick with an abridged Bible where her brain should be don’t even notice that they’re prejudiced, let alone feel ashamed of it.
December 4, 2009, 9:02 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Dilan Esper,
Michelle, bear in mind that we had no national interests in Iraq whatsoever and the war needlessly slaughtered over 4,000 brave American servicemembers. Whether or not getting the heck out served the interests of the Iraqis was not something we should care about.
I can believe that “we had no national interests in Iraq whatsoever” in isolation, but not at the same time as “it was all about the OIL,” which was the other going theme. And whether our pulling out would result in almost certain genocide is indeed something we ought to have cared about, unless all that “Never again!” rhetoric in the wake of the Holocaust was so much hooey.
Or do you regard the Clinton Administration’s policy vis-a-vis Rwanda as a model to be emulated? Lord knows we had no earthly national interests in Rwanda, unless you count that boring not-wanting-to-see-mass-slaughter-happen-when-we-might-have-stopped-it stuff. Lord knows the Dutch had no possible “national interests” at stake in Srebenica; maybe they did the transparently right thing.
December 4, 2009, 9:15 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Nasty little snot, aren’t you? Try a little rational conversation at some point. As for your innuendo, some of us give up looking a particular thread after a day or two. I suppose you’ve got time to subscribe to the automatic email feed. I don’t. I just drop by when I’m trying to avoid working.
Palin was in fact cleared by the State Personnel Board. Period. You choose to believe the report of a private detective hired by the legislature. Fine. But calling it a “lie” is just dumb. She was cleared by the body which has jurisdiction over the claims.
December 4, 2009, 9:50 pmDEO says:
Palin was NOT cleared. The matter was dropped$$$$$$$$$$$$. Palin’s people proclaimed, Mrs. Palin has put this matter behind her now…..uh huh…which means it is only a matter of time before it rears it’s ugly head again, because it was never resolved.
Apparantly the state trooper was so engaged at Palin’s pack of printed lies that he is finally breaking HIS silence, maybe he will hire the same ghostwriter.
December 4, 2009, 10:05 pmsteve s says:
David- So the following is wrong?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
Also here
http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml
December 4, 2009, 10:13 pmDavid Nieporent says:
If it were really “one of many,” one would think you might be citing many different examples, instead of the same one over and over again. Particularly since the word “habitual” requires many instances.
December 4, 2009, 10:21 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Andrew J. Lazarus,
I doubt if you will find many liberals opposed to the rooting out of corruption, even regardless of party. (Since you probably don’t visit Daily Kos, take my word, Rep. Jefferson got nothing but condemnation there.)
That’s true; the Congressman with the stacks of hundreds in his freezer was roundly denounced at DK well before he was convicted. Indeed, even Charles Rangel is in bad odor at DK. You can only rent so many rent-controlled apartments and claim so many homestead exemptions and forget your ownership of so many vacation properties before even your friends become uncomfortable.
December 4, 2009, 10:29 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Dilan Esper,
Theo, your own dictionary defines “sexist” as “anyone who refutes something Theo says”.
Dilan, in all earnestness, I ask you to show me a place where you (or anyone) has “refut[ed] something Theo says.” Double-special bonus points if you can document her calling the miscreant a “sexist.” NB I do insist on the generally accepted meaning of “refute.”
I ask because I really haven’t seen theobromophile behaving as you say she has, but then I don’t read everything posted here.
December 4, 2009, 10:45 pmSarcastro says:
…Did David Nieporent just ask JBG to provide a list of things?
December 4, 2009, 11:17 pmElliot says:
Can someone tell us the difference between these two?
December 4, 2009, 11:51 pmElliot says:
Some go so far as to say, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”
December 4, 2009, 11:55 pmSuzy says:
Please don’t lose sight of the important point here: women voters–including Republican women–don’t embrace Palin enough for her to be a practical Republican choice in 2012. Why is this? After all, she’s accomplished impressive things as a mother of five, and she has charisma that should be appealing to women as well as men. Some people (including in comments here) have suggested that maybe the women are jealous of her. In response to that, I say it’s just as likely that they see through the fluff a little more easily than the men. Am I wrong?
You say that quitting is something she did to better serve the people of Alaska. But it sounds to me like she abandoned all of their issues and just works on promoting herself and making money now. What kind of work is she actually doing to advance important causes in Alaska? And if quitting is a good response to facing a difficult opposition, well, what’s going to stop her from quitting as President? She just gets tired of the media potshots and the demands for hearings in Congress, and punts? It’s not leadership. It’s not strength. It would be great if we really could have a mavericky woman leader like Palin to shake things up, but she’s just not the woman for that job. She’s tabloid material, and she keeps stooping to that level.
Just today, she’s talking about Trig stories and Obama’s birth certificate, and again how much of a victim she is! What kind of leadership is that? The last thing I want my strong female leaders to do is cry foul about how the media treats them. Just get out there and show us what you can accomplish, ok? In her case, I’m not seeing the good accomplishments. Just the whining.
December 5, 2009, 12:00 amJames A. Donald says:
The Volokh conspiracy tells us
Read what she says on her facebook page about Climategate, and what the Volokh conspiracy says. To judge who is right, download the climategate files, and grep for “fudge factor”
Who then is ignorant, who then has made no attempt to remedy that ignorance?
December 5, 2009, 12:40 amravenshrike says:
@Suzy. IIRC, she accomplished everything she set out to in her campaign for governor. Which means the only thing for her to do at that point was to deal with the day to day issues. However, with the lawsuits from the rabid anti-Palin faction piling up, and the fact that it was going to continue to cost the state time and millions of dollars as well as most probably bankrupt her family, she decided to hand over the reins to a very capable Lt. Gov. and get off the line of attack. Remaining in her position would have benefited no one but those attacking her. Unless, of course, you know if any major outstanding ‘issues’ she left untouched. Which I doubt.
December 5, 2009, 1:14 amleo marvin says:
Except for the ‘not capable or hard working’ part, sounds like Tracy Flick.
December 5, 2009, 1:45 amjukeboxgrad says:
slim, fury, thanks for the friendly greeting.
Ever since I started posting here (not long after comments were first opened, years ago) I’ve regularly taken long breaks.
I’m in the middle of one of those breaks, but sometimes a Palin thread is too good to miss. The Palin phenomenon is interesting because it vividly demonstrates the current state of the GOP. As captured in a wonderful exchange like this:
Cato The Elder:
jam2:
There’s a battle going on inside the GOP, and people like jam2 are winning that battle.
What more needs to be said? When the GOP tent no longer has no room for someone like Cato, that means the tent has gotten pretty darn small. Which is lovely news; I say the smaller the better. As Schumacher said, small is beautiful.
=============
danger:
I never voted for anyone named Clinton (although I do think Bill Clinton was one of our best Republican presidents). But I’m sure you’ll come up with some other shallow excuse to whitewash Palin’s lies.
I realize you’re part of the group that thinks lying about a blowjob is worse than lying the country into an unnecessary war (proof, proof).
=============
ravenshrike:
The example I cited is sufficient to prove that Palin is a liar. And your reaction to the example is sufficient to prove that you’re inclined to make excuses for a liar. So other examples are superfluous, although there are plenty of them.
And why shouldn’t such an action violate the law? Why are you suggesting such an action is proper? What the law actually says is this:
What’s your objection to that law?
And even if you object to that law, how does your objection demonstrate that Palin’s lie was something other than a lie? It doesn’t. Palin didn’t claim that Branchflower’s conclusion should be ignored because it was based on an (allegedly) bad law. Palin simply offered a description of Branchflower’s conclusion that was contrary to Branchflower’s actual conclusion.
If an investigation finds me guilty of a certain thing, it’s one thing for me to assert that the investigation was wrong or unfair. It’s something else entirely for me to assert that the investigation didn’t find me guilty of anything. What Palin did is the latter (although of course on other occasions she also did the former). In doing so, she told an outright lie.
What “subordinates’ malicious abuse of power?” It’s not just that Monegan and Wooten did not abuse their power. It’s that Palin never even accused them of doing so (although she made lots of other accusations, most of which were found to be unsubstantiated). So you’re being incoherent. The one who is guilty of “abuse of power” is Palin.
If I think I have a mission to break up the “little fiefdoms” of the “established Democrat and Republican parties,” I would be well-advised to avoid using the power of my office to try to influence my sister’s messy divorce proceedings. Because when I do so, it gives my enemies a legitimate basis to take my power away.
And Palin didn’t just use the power of her office to try to influence her sister’s messy divorce proceedings. She did so (directly and via her staff) in a way that left a huge trail of evidence (including various emails and a taped phone call). Which suggests that aside from being unethical, she’s also not too smart.
By the way, if you actually take a close look at the way she governed, her middle name is “fiefdom.” She didn’t get rid of the idea of ‘fiefdoms.’ She just replaced the old one with her own.
And speaking of blatant, transparent lies, here’s another one. Palin and her staff repeatedly pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. Numerous documents demonstrate this, including emails from Palin herself. Then Palin claimed that Monegan was never pressured to fire Wooten (and this statement is proof that Palin knew what she was doing was wrong; if it was proper to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, there would have been no need to issue this phony denial). That was another outright lie. One of many. (Primary documents supporting this can be found via here.)
Palin’s claims about those expenses are greatly exaggerated. What a surprise.
=============
machoots:
You’re repeating the same transparent nonsense you posted in the other thread. The issue (at the moment) is not whether or not the “private detective” (Branchflower) reached a correct conclusion. The issue is that Palin offered a false description of his conclusion. That’s called ‘lying.’
Yes, Petumenos (who was hired by a committee controlled by the governor) eventually cleared Palin. But when Palin claimed she had been cleared, she wasn’t talking about Putemenos. How do we know? Here’s one way we know: his report had not been issued yet. Palin was talking about Branchflower. Palin claimed Branchflower cleared her. Trouble is, he didn’t.
And the Petumenos report is a joke (proof via here). Of course you are saying nothing to address that.
=============
bob:
Really? This is what she said:
Palin obviously doesn’t trust the radical Marxists at the WSJ, who have said this:
And if I claim that something is being done “rightfully,” how is that not a choice to “endorse” that something? I think I need to get my hands on the special GOP dictionary, where words like ‘rightful’ and ‘endorse’ have magically elastic meanings.
And speaking of lies, she then said this:
If I claim that the people suggesting he wasn’t born in the US are doing so “rightfully,” how is that different from suggesting he wasn’t born in the US?
And speaking of birth certificates, here’s another lie in that interview: Palin suggesting that she has provided Trig’s birth certificate. She hasn’t.
=============
martha:
Indeed. She was endangering not just herself and Trig but also the other passengers. If her situation had turned into a medical emergency, the pilot would have been under pressure to make an unscheduled landing, and under possibly adverse conditions (e.g., the wrong airport and/or the wrong weather). This is why most airlines have a policy that would have prevented her from flying (unless she concealed her condition, which is what she did). What she did was selfish and irresponsible. Typical Palin.
By the way, do you know how this story ended up in the press? Did a passenger call a reporter? Someone from the airline? No. She reached out to reporters to tell the story. I can’t decide what’s more bizarre: that she got on the plane, or that she had an urge to brag about her poor judgment.
Palin repeatedly goes out of her way to parade her family life before the press (much more than other politicians), and then of course she whines when the press discusses her family life. This is one of many examples of how she uses scapegoats to avoid taking responsibility for her own actions.
Palin set up a press photo session for Trig when he was three days old. Few things are more despicable than using a three-day old infant as a political prop, but that’s what she did. And the photo session had exactly the desired outcome: it led to the obvious headlines that excited her pro-life base.
Palin routinely invites us to evaluate her parental decisions, but expects us to close our eyes when we notice that those decisions are not uniformly impressive. Trouble is, it doesn’t work that way.
=============
nieporent:
I have indeed cited multiple examples, directly and indirectly (e.g., a bunch of interesting examples can be seen here). But my one favorite example is especially clear, simple and obvious. It’s sufficient to demonstrate that Palin is a liar, and the simplicity of it vividly highlights the remarkable obtuseness of her apologists.
=============
sarcastro:
If you were a little smarter, you would have figured out a long time ago that he’s one of my many sock puppets. After all, didn’t you notice that he’s recently been accused of being a liberal?
December 5, 2009, 4:22 amDavid Nieporent says:
I invite you to read, not a Seattle Times article, but the actual statutes, and see for yourself. (As for the second link you provide, the fact that it keeps repeating the phrase “windfall profits tax” without any support doesn’t prove anything at all.)
December 5, 2009, 5:25 amDavid Nieporent says:
The only problem is, most of those show “inconsistencies,” not “lies.” And inconsistencies between what and what? Either between one person’s claim and another’s — which may or may not prove that one person lied, but doesn’t show which one — or between one person’s claim and another person’s guesses or assumptions, which proves nothing at all. (For instance, claiming that Palin reduced her security detail does not prove that she lied when she said Wooten was a threat.) Some don’t even show inconsistencies. For instance, “The alleged threat against Heath was witnessed by no one outside the family.” And? What does the lack of witnesses have to do with whether it happened?
But we’ve been over all this before, and I see no need to rehash it further. Anybody who’s interested can check the VC archives.
No, at most it’s sufficient to demonstrate that Palin lied, not to show that she is “a liar” (or, to use the phrase you previously used, a “habitual” liar.) If showing a single lie were sufficient to demonstrate that someone is “a liar,” then everyone on the planet is “a liar,” since everyone has told lies, and the word ceases to convey any informational content.
December 5, 2009, 6:12 amdavod says:
“Oh, wait! Absolutely humongous ballot stuffing by ACORN and voter intimidation by the many Black Panther chapters in North Carolina.”
Don’t forget the uninquisitive media.
December 5, 2009, 7:54 amRicardo says:
Why would we want to do that? Howard Dean lost the Democratic nomination in 2004. If Palin continues to say that wingnut conspiracy theories present legitimate issues, I would hope she faces a similar fate in 2012. And if she doesn’t, that wouldn’t reflect very well on Republicans voting in the primaries, now would it?
Look, when Glenn Beck is saying it is time for conservatives to abandon Birther nonsense (and I’m glad you agree it is just as odious as Truther nonsense), well, maybe it’s time to move on.
December 5, 2009, 8:46 amTonetel says:
Thank you! How intellectually dishonest can these Palin haters get.
December 5, 2009, 10:27 amjukeboxgrad says:
nieporent:
Some examples are more egregious than others. But there are enough egregious examples (that is, lies that are incontrovertible, blatant and serious) to demonstrate that she’s a habitual liar.
Palin said Wooten abused her sister, even though the sister told police that Wooten never abused her.
Palin has repeatedly claimed that Wooten is violent and abusive, even though the court found that there was no evidence that Wooten was violent or abusive.
Palin has repeatedly cited the DVPO as proof that Wooten is violent and abusive, even though the presumptive DVPO was quickly rescinded specifically because the court found that Wooten was not violent or abusive.
Palin said the court ruled that Wooten was violent, even though the court found the opposite of that.
Palin said the DVPO extended into 2006, even though it was rescinded on 5/9/05, after a total duration of less than a month.
Palin said, in 2008, that Wooten “is” the subject of a DVPO, suggesting that the DVPO was still in effect, even though the DVPO was quickly rescinded in 2006 (and never meant anything to begin with).
Palin said she never knew that Wooten had already been disciplined, even though multiple witnesses have testified that Sarah and Todd were told that Wooten had already been disciplined.
Palin said she never knew that Wooten had already been disciplined, even though she has admitted being in possession of his entire personnel file (and records of that discipline are in his personnel file).
Palin said Wooten had been disciplined a dozen times prior to the DVPO, even though police records show that the actual number is three (for such things as not using turn signals).
(Some of the above example refer to statements made by Palin personally, and some refer to statements she made via her agents, like her lawyer, her official spokesperson, the McCain campaign and/or her husband.)
“Everyone” has told lies like these? Lies this serious? This obvious? Maybe in your world. Not in mine.
Your zeal in defending a proven liar is utterly unsurprising, since your own relationship with the truth is strikingly reminiscent of hers (proof, proof). Yes, the VC archives contain lots of helpful information.
xanthippas correctly summarized the situation when he said this:
December 5, 2009, 10:34 amTonetel says:
Can you imagine these same whiners having to endure the conditions of child-birth in Africa or Honduras, or 19th century America for that matter?
December 5, 2009, 10:37 amjukeboxgrad says:
davod:
Funny you should mention them. Palin has repeatedly referenced the DVPO as proof Wooten is violent, even though the DVPO is not proof that Wooten is violent. This is scrupulously documented in wikipedia. Can you find a single example of the press reporting this fact? I can’t. That darn liberal media.
December 5, 2009, 10:45 amjukeboxgrad says:
tonetel:
If Palin wanted to give birth to Trig while conducing a rustic, dangerous reenactment of “19th century America,” she is not free to do so, because she doesn’t live in “19th century America,” and we currently have laws against child endangerment.
She is also not free to subject her unsuspecting fellow passengers to the hassle and danger of an unscheduled landing. Nevertheless, she imposed that risk on them, and then bragged about it. And people who consider this defensible behavior are the current base of the GOP. This doesn’t bode well for the GOP.
December 5, 2009, 10:57 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
jukeboxgrad,
These two items, juxtaposed —
Palin said the DVPO extended into 2006, even though it was rescinded on 5/9/05, after a total duration of less than a month.
Palin said, in 2008, that Wooten “is” the subject of a DVPO, suggesting that the DVPO was still in effect, even though the DVPO was quickly rescinded in 2006 (and never meant anything to begin with).
— make an odd pair. One says that Palin claimed the DVPO lasted into 2006, whereas actually it was rescinded in 2005; the next says that Palin implied that the DVPO lasted into 2008, whereas actually it was rescinded . . . in 2006?
Obviously one of these two statements is a lie. Or else a typo ;-)
December 5, 2009, 11:45 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
jukeboxgrad,
If Palin wanted to give birth to Trig while conducing a rustic, dangerous reenactment of “19th century America,” she is not free to do so, because she doesn’t live in “19th century America,” and we currently have laws against child endangerment.
IANAL, so have no idea whether Palin violated AK law here, but you’re the first I’ve seen suggest so. And I had thought an incredible amount of legal effort had gone into establishing that there is no “child endangerment” where there is no child. Or have some laws treating a fetus as a “child” in connection with the mother-to-be’s own conduct (as distinct from the conduct of others who violently attack her) slipped through NARAL’s net?
December 5, 2009, 11:58 amTonetel says:
I must have missed her indictment and prosecution.
And I’m sure it was a life changing experience for many on board. You’re right, bound to be a hare-bringer of doom for the GOP.
I’ll tell you what doesn’t bode well for the left, this obsession with all things Palin and her ever shrinking favorability gap when with the President. Obama / Palin are tied in a potential match-up as it stands today. Two more months of “smart power” and she’ll be comfortably ahead.
December 5, 2009, 11:59 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Tonetel,
You’re right, bound to be a hare-bringer of doom for the GOP.
Oh, man, that’s a keeper. One I escaped not reading by a hare’s breath. Thanks!
December 5, 2009, 12:06 pmTonetel says:
Why should Palin deliver her medical records to forensic pathologists like Andrew Sullivan, when the President of the United States can’t cough-up his? Let alone his college transcripts, SAT or LSAT scores, etc.
December 5, 2009, 12:09 pmTonetel says:
lol Oops, binger.
December 5, 2009, 12:14 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
OK, I buy that, especially since you don’t attempt to determine whether that was more or less compared to people who, once in the voting booth or earlier, decided they couldn’t vote for a black man. (Although there is that great story of the Obama canvasser reporting a family that told him “We’re voting for the nigger.”)
The point is, there also appear to be Republicans who were enthusiastic about Sarah Palin not for her stands on the issues, or whether she was well-informed about them at all, but from the flip side of the same superficialities that allegedly led others to look down on her. Case in point, Rich Lowry writing at NRO.
December 5, 2009, 12:31 pmDavid Nieporent says:
“Repeatedly” referenced that? How many times, exactly? Is it more or fewer times than you have made that claim?
December 5, 2009, 12:55 pmDavid Nieporent says:
None of which would apply.
It’s not clear what you mean by “not free.” I don’t know if she has ever said what airline she flew, but assuming it’s Alaska Air, they have no restrictions on pregnant women flying. Perhaps more significantly, neither does the FAA, who — if this safety issue weren’t something you just pulled out of your ass in an increasingly desperate attempt to hold an untenable position — would be likely to impose some restrictions. Regardless of whether it was wise — something you know nothing about — it would be a “lie” to claim that she was “not free” to fly. And when did she “brag” about it, as opposed to talking about or mentioning it?
December 5, 2009, 1:09 pmbyomtov says:
Michelle Dulak Thompson,
byomtov, people who harbor racial prejudice today generally feel obliged to disguise or deny it. People who think someone with Palin’s background can safely be assumed to be a provincial hick with an abridged Bible where her brain should be don’t even notice that they’re prejudiced, let alone feel ashamed of it.
I agree about racial prejudice. But if we’re discussing reactions to cultural backgrounds in general this is not true. In fact lots of people love to bash “coastal elites,” “Ivy Leaguers,” intellectuals, inhabitants of big cities, etc. They view education as a weakness, not a qualification. And they make no bones about it. Palin herself seems to imagine that only those in small towns are “real Americans,” and she finds a lot of support.
So spare us the lecture about how unfair the visceral reactions to Palin’s cultural background are. There’s more than enough going the other way, from her and her admirers.
December 5, 2009, 1:38 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Andrew J. Lazarus,
The point is, there also appear to be Republicans who were enthusiastic about Sarah Palin not for her stands on the issues, or whether she was well-informed about them at all, but from the flip side of the same superficialities that allegedly led others to look down on her.
“Allegedly”? You think there’s any question? If class prejudice ever acquires the degree of stigma that race prejudice now enjoys (if that’s the mot juste), the early days of Sarah Palin’s vice-Presidential candidacy will become a famous exhibit.
Re Rich Lowry, well, permit me a visceral reaction: “Ewwww.” But that goes for Chris Matthews’ “thrill up the leg” as well. These aren’t good reasons to back any politician.
December 5, 2009, 1:43 pmJaimeInTexas says:
About wearing religion on sleeves. It all depends on one’s heart motives. God is the only one that truly knows a heart/motive but there are times when praying and standing out as a Christian (in Daniel’s case as a Jew) is called for.
I am curious as to what has Ms. Palin done/said that cause some to ask “isn’t she supposed to be a Christian?”
December 5, 2009, 1:47 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
byomtov,
I said:
People who think someone with Palin’s background can safely be assumed to be a provincial hick with an abridged Bible where her brain should be don’t even notice that they’re prejudiced, let alone feel ashamed of it.
And you replied (emphasis mine):
But if we’re discussing reactions to cultural backgrounds in general this is not true. In fact lots of people love to bash “coastal elites,” “Ivy Leaguers,” intellectuals, inhabitants of big cities, etc. They view education as a weakness, not a qualification. And they make no bones about it. Palin herself seems to imagine that only those in small towns are “real Americans,” and she finds a lot of support.
You’re not contradicting anything I said; you’re arguing, “Well, Palin and her supporters are prejudiced too.” Which is conceivably true, but which I didn’t deny or, indeed, address at all. So what part of what I actually wrote “is not true” again?
My point was that people who pride themselves on their lack of prejudice ought, in principle, to be specially careful not to be, y’know, prejudiced or anything.
December 5, 2009, 1:53 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
I am amused to read that not giving birth in a hospital, by definition, is child endangerment. I am father of 4 children and know several families who have opted to give birth to their children at home.
Only in these uS do we consider birthing outside a hospital unnatural!
December 5, 2009, 2:03 pmRandy says:
“Randy can you link to exactly what it is that Palin says about the bridge (preferably with context)? I’m not jumping to her defense — just curious.”
Sure. Just go
David: “Oh, you got that list from Sullivan? That explains a lot. No, most of those were not “demonstrated lies.” Some of them were true; others were differences of opinion. Others were ordinary political spin. I’m sure a few of them were actually “demonstrated lies,” which makes her… a politician”
Specifically, which lie of hers turned out to be true? Can you name one? And you say most of the were not ‘demonstrated lies.’ How many?
Whether you like Andrew Sullivan or not, he isn’t stupid. And the record is clear regardless of who the actual compiler is. He found several instances where she said one thing one time, and another thing another time, completely the opposite.
Furthermore, there are plenty of other ‘untruths’ being unearthed in her book. Sure Sullivan may be a little obsessed over it, but he admits he is precisely because *no one* else is doing this. And sure, you can dismiss his compillation with a wave of the hand, but refuting the substance of his list is much more difficult. And despite everyone groaning about Sullivan, not a single one of you have been able to demonstrate that his list is actually inaccurate.
Furthermore, he has made a willing offer to anyone: If you can prove that any of his findings are in fact true and not lies, he is willing to report it and take it off the list. So please — go ahead — inform Sullivan of which ones are actually true statements of Palin’s. But you can’t do that — instead, you just attack the messenger.
Again, this all comes down to the fact that no one can defend Palin. The only defense is to attack her detractors, say Obama is worse or simply ignore the issue.
December 5, 2009, 2:07 pmRandy says:
Bob From Ohio: “Beats me, I’m not a Christian. Though lots of good religious people of all faiths sometimes fail to live 100% by their faith. In fact, I’d say most.
Doesn’t make them hypocritical, just human.”
I agree. But the problem is that they expect *everyone else* to live up to their ideals, and they roundly condemn them if they don’t. I would have no problem if they just kept to themselves.
Which is why I am rather surprised over the whole Palin/Prejean thing. I though sex before marriage was verboten in the Christian world. Sure, it happens, but they way you hear Christians talk about it, it’s the downfall of western civ. And yet Palin allows her daughter to have sex, even to the point of allowing Levi live with Bristol. That’s not a human failing — that’s repudiation of a central tenet of her religion.
Same thing with Prejean — she poses naked while a teenager. We are supposed to believe she is still a virgin? Yet she can go around condemning everyone else.
If this is, as Jam2 professes, the future of the GOP — backing religious right wingers who publically don’t even believe in the stuff that they profess — then it’s in even more serious trouble than I thought.
December 5, 2009, 2:22 pmRandy says:
Jam2: “I am curious as to what has Ms. Palin done/said that cause some to ask “isn’t she supposed to be a Christian?””
Lying violates the Commandment of not bearing false witness. She isn’t supposed to encourage or accomodate premarital sex among her children. Not sure what Jesus would say about spending thousands of dollars on clothes, or shooting animals for sport, but I wouldn’t think he would approve.
December 5, 2009, 2:26 pmbyomtov says:
Michelle Dulak Thompson,
You’re not contradicting anything I said;
No. I’m not. I didn’t intend to. In fact I explicitly agreed with one of your points.
My use of the phrase “not true” was not in reference to anything you said. It was intended to distinguish the behavior of two groups.
To be clearer:
You said that some people have a visceral negative reaction to Palin for cultural reasons.
I said that people also have a visceral reaction to Obama for racial/cultural reasons.
You agreed, but said that (a) those who are racially prejudiced at least feel obligated, in general, to conceal this, while (b) those who object to Palin simply because of her background seem not to admit their prejudice, or at least are not ashamed of it.
I then agreed with (a), but pointed out (bringing in a new group) that this was “not true” of many who have visceral reactions to “coastal elites,” etc. I was not contradicting your statement. I was pointing out that what we agree is true of racists, and what you say is not true of “cultural anti-Palinites,” is also true of “cultural pro-Palinites.” That is, there is no sense or admission that prejudices are at work.
It was a statement about a group we had not discussed but which perhaps is a better mirror of those you are criticizing than racists are.
So, yes. I agree that.
“people who pride themselves on their lack of prejudice ought, in principle, to be specially careful not to be, y’know, prejudiced or anything.”
But if you are going to charge Palin’s opponents with cultural prejudice I think you ought to realize that her supporters, and indeed Palin herself, are guilty of the same thing.
December 5, 2009, 2:30 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Your zeal in attacking is unsurprising, since your relationship to the truth is purely partisan. (Proof. (Only one link, because I don’t sit around obsessively bookmarking blog comments so I can refer to them months later in an attempt to attack all the posters who have disagreed with me. I just happen to remember that one so well because you revisited it later without revealing that you had been caught in a lie the first time you brought it up.) As for Palin, your arguments have already been devastatingly refuted; I don’t “defend” her so much as I defend the truth — a notion you’re unfamiliar with. An unfair attack on Palin is no more justified than an unfair attack on Obama, regardless of whether one agrees with either of them.
December 5, 2009, 2:37 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Randy,
David Nieporent provided this, way upthread:
Perhaps the most extreme example, precisely because it’s so petty: “Palin lied when she said that ‘reported’ allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was [sic!] 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.” In actual fact, the fraudulent list had numerous Harry Potter books on it which hadn’t been published; the fact that the first book in the series had been published is thus utterly irrelevant. And if she said “reported” — the only word of hers actually quoted — then why does the alleged refutation claim that it’s false because it wasn’t “reported in the media”? The claim that it was ‘only circulated as emails’ is actually false; it was posted on numerous websites — in other words, “reported.”
The list of books Palin allegedly wanted banned went up through the fourth in the series, which my copy says is “copyright 2000.” Palin was still mayor then, so if she actually said that she wasn’t mayor when the Harry Potter books on the list were published, that would be either a lie or a mistake. But if the list circulated before Goblet of Fire was published, it is an obvious “lie” that she banned the as-yet-nonexistent book, yes?
(Snopes says that the source for the story that Palin wanted to ban books was a conversation with the librarian in 1996, before any of the Harry Potter books were published; it also appears that the list was circulating as early as 1998. Unclear from Snopes whether yet-to-be-published Harry Potter books were on it then, though.)
And it is, yes, beyond silly for Sullivan (of all people!) to call it a “lie” to say that something was “reported” when it appeared only online and not in print media.
December 5, 2009, 2:46 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
byomtov,
I was pointing out that what we agree is true of racists, and what you say is not true of “cultural anti-Palinites,” is also [not?] true of “cultural pro-Palinites.” That is, there is no sense or admission that prejudices are at work.
I think there’s a missing negative in there.
I think you have a valid point; there’s lots of stereotyping on both sides. But what you said was that what I said “is not true.” And in fact you still have avoided saying that it is true, while clarifying the (entirely different) statement you meant to make. Do you really not think that there is class prejudice against Palin, from people who make a point of rejecting other sorts of prejudice?
December 5, 2009, 3:01 pmDEO says:
The Harry Potter books were a red herring thrown out there by Mrs. Palin. The books Palin QUESTIONED were books about homosexuality, NOT Harry Potter. One was called PASTOR, I’M GAY or something like that.
December 5, 2009, 3:05 pmThere are MANY ways to LIE and Palin in adept in all.
theobromophile says:
To add to one of Michelle Dulak Thompson’s points: I’m amazed that people who hate Palin for political reasons (i.e. liberals) are so stunningly quick to deride her for making a legitimate decision, based on her doctor’s analysis, that ended up working out.
I’m downright enraged that people are considering it child endangerment or some sort of recklessness to dare to get on a plane during the latter half of the last trimester. Pregnant women are still human beings who are entitled to travel about this country. Last time I checked, we don’t ban people with heart disease from flying on the grounds that a mid-air heart attack could prove disastrous; yet, it’s arguably a lot easier to give birth without a physician’s help than it is to survive cardiac arrest – especially if one’s own doctor has done thorough pre-natal screening and cleared the mother to fly.
December 5, 2009, 3:12 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
DEO,
The Harry Potter books were a red herring thrown out there by Mrs. Palin.
Wow. You’re crediting her with more duplicity than even Sullivan does. She can only have “thrown out” this “red herring” if she personally instigated the circulation of the list of books she allegedly wanted to ban. You are the first, so far as I can tell, to suggest this. Have you any evidence?
December 5, 2009, 3:22 pmMartha says:
Who said that? I certainly don’t think that it’s child endangerment to give birth at home. I do think that responsible expectant mothers don’t board 8-10 hour flights when they are in early labor. The mothers I know who give birth at home also plan for emergencies, just in case. Even The Farm Midwives plan for emergencies. Palin says she was leaking amniotic fluid, which means cord prolapse was a real possibility. After 4 other babies, surely she knew that. Why would she deliberately place herself where emergency help couldn’t reach her? Since Palin made it safely to the hospital, maybe this one act doesn’t seem important enough to worry about, especially compared to her overall record. But I am astonished that so many people defend her unnecessary risk-taking in this instance.
December 5, 2009, 5:56 pmIndy says:
We didn’t all hang with the same crowd in middle school and high school. We didn’t all date or marry or partner with the same type of people as we became adults. And we’re not all going to be drawn to the same type of politicians. Nothing wrong with that.
Palin to date has represented a polarizing type of politician, one who boosts the spirits of those who relate to her but doesn’t know (yet?) how to draw the undecided or the centrists or Independents such as I to conservatism. (And as many Independents do, I actually sometimes vote for Republicans and sometimes for Democrats.) She may have played a typical VP candidate’s part – the attack dog — last year, but what she has said and written since represents Sarah Palin on her own. So far, I see a divider, not a uniter. And I see someone who underneath, in some way, lacks confidence in America.
Kathleen Parker writes today about the USA Network, which has a site which emphasizes the principles and values that unite us. Parker muses, “Is there still such a thing, or have we all become leading divas in our own passion plays? Has identity politics overtaken the shared values we used to tote in our mental backpacks?” She cites a poll in which the majority of Americans say lack of unity became worse during the last decade than it had been. According to the USA Network poll, more than seven in 10 Americans think that we are too divided along political lines (75 percent) or economic lines (73 percent). Smaller majorities say that we’re too divided along racial and ethnic lines (53 percent) or religious lines (52 percent).
Is Palin the person to help improve national unity? I doubt it. She lacks Reagan’s projected serenity and confidence. Too much is someone else’s fault. I don’t think the problems we see right now lie in conservatism, per se. I do think that after Reagan left office, conservatives fell into a pattern of framing too many things in terms of grievance and victimhood. The recent trend towards dividing people into “real” Americans and those who somehow aren’t also is very unattractive to centrists such as I.
If a conservative comes along and conveys a sense of really liking his or her fellow Americans, regardless of how they vote, and feeling comfortable in America — in all its diversity of thought — s/he could revitalize the GOP. I just don’t think Palin is the person to do that. I haven’t seen her convey the serenity that comes from feeling at ease in America *as a whole* America as a political environment where differing philosophies are respected rather than demonized as if one fears them. America as a place to listen as well as to impose rigid ideas in governing. America as a place which values individualism and questions and even dissent. I can’t see David Brooks ever writing about Palin as he did yesterday (“The Analytic Mode”) about Obama, “His policies are often a balance as he tries to accommodate different points of view. He doesn’t generally issue edicts. In matters foreign and domestic, he seems to spend a lot of time coaxing people along. His governing style, in short, is biased toward complexity.” That doesn’t mean we should rule out that one day a conservative who has such a temperament will rise to prominence and succeed. The base may love cheering someone who wags her finger and complains about “elites.” But the party needs much more to win general elections.
December 5, 2009, 6:20 pmmariner says:
Andrew J. Lazarus:
Horsefeathers. (Nah, Bullshit.)
When the FBI raided Democrat Jefferson’s home and office, Democrats were outraged (and for the record so was that jackass Republican Hastert). There wasn’t evidence of any reaction at the FBI’s raid of Republican Duke Cunningham.
Cunningham was forced from office before the end of his term and went straight to prison, where he belongs. Jefferson was only convicted years later after he was already out of office.
Pelosi has steered tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to her husband’s firm. Rangel may not be defended at DK but he certainly isn’t being driven from office — he hasn’t even lost his chairmanship. Franks isn’t even being investigated, despite the perennial stench of corruption in his office. Dodd isn’t being investigated. I could go on and on.
The simple fact is that Democrats only care about punishing corruption if Republicans are involved, preferring to circle the wagons around their own.
Palin is distinctly different in that she spotlighted corruption in both parties; this is why the leaderships of both parties want her hounded from the public square.
December 5, 2009, 6:27 pmMartha says:
Why is it that anyone who criticizes any Palin decision must be a Palin hater? I guess there are no shades of gray where Palin is concerned.
Palin was leaking amniotic fluid and feeling contractions. That’s a bit more than just being pregnant. And she boarded an 8-10 hour flight from Texas to Alaska. That’s a bit longer than the shuttle from DC to NY.
Who is talking about banning anyone from flight? I’m talking about Palin’s own decision to board the flight, which seems awfully cavalier.
I’m not aware of any “thorough pre-natal screening” by her doctor that cleared her to fly. As far as I have heard, Palin did not ask her doctor for medical clearance to fly, and since she was in Texas, I don’t see how her Alaskan OB could have performed a thorough screening. But I’m not going to search through a zillion “Is Trig Sarah’s baby?” links either. If you know of any evidence that Palin obtained a thorough screening from some other doctor, or that Palin’s obstetrician knew about the leaking amniotic fluid and still advised her to board that plane, I’d be interested to see it.
If she did get a thorough pre-natal screening before boarding that flight, it’s too bad that she didn’t say so, since she was talking to reporters anyway. That information would make a difference.
December 5, 2009, 6:29 pmmariner says:
Michelle Dulak Thomson:
And I escaped missing yours by a hair’s breadth!
(“The devil made me do it.”) ;)
December 5, 2009, 6:36 pmbyomtov says:
Michelle Dulak Thompson,
Yes. There is a missing negative. Thanks.
Do you really not think that there is class prejudice against Palin, from people who make a point of rejecting other sorts of prejudice?
Of course there is some class prejudice against Palin. And of course people often don’t recognize their prejudices, whatever they are.
Where we might disagree is how important prejudice is in the opposition to Palin relative to disagreement with her politics or the belief that she simply lacks the capabilities needed for high national office. After all, she burst on the scene as a Republican VP nominee who enjoyed great approval from conservatives. It’s not unreasonable for liberals to conclude from that alone that they disliked her politics, though of course it says nothing about her capabilities.
As to the “not true” business, I think the confusion arises over what the word “this” in the phrase, “then this is not true,” refers to. You took it as being your sentence about those who dislike Palin. I intended it to refer to having the feeling of being “obliged to disguise or deny [racial prejudice]” and meant that those with cultural prejudices did not have that trait. In other words, “Group A has a certain characteristic. But this is not true of Group B.”
Have we chewed that enough?
December 5, 2009, 6:40 pmMartha says:
To be clear, the link I posted says that Palin’s OB was told about the fluid but did not give clearance to fly. However, the OB is quoted as saying, after Trig’s birth, “I don’t think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back.” I just found a NYT article that quotes a different doctor: “The long trip home could have posed a risk, ‘but the odds were still in her favor that everything would be O.K.,’ said Dr. Susan E. Gerber of Northwestern University.” A site I posted earlier said that the odds of cord prolapse are one in 300. Those are not odds I would have taken, personally, but the gamble did pay off for Palin.
December 5, 2009, 6:48 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
For institutional reasons, neither Democrats nor Republics in Congress supported the Feds raiding Jefferson’s refrigerator. Democrats at Daily Kos were against Jefferson, and Michelle Dulak Thompson noted too. (And she doesn’t read like a big DK supporter.) Kos the man himself:
Basically, mariner, if you aren’t going to read Kos yourself, you ought to STFU and not insult people while acting out your total cluelessness.
December 5, 2009, 7:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
michelle:
Thanks for being a careful reader. It’s a typo. I should have typed 2005.
Once the child is born, then there is a child. So if I deliberately deliver a child under unnecessarily dangerous conditions, and therefore the child (i.e., post-birth) is subject to real danger, I think I might have legal problems.
By the way, I’m not claiming Palin actually did this. I was just making a point about the absurdity of bringing up the 19th century.
She’ll have to get in line behind Bill Clinton, because (in my opinion) class prejudice was an important element of the negative reaction to him (among certain groups). After all, he was from Hope, Arkansas. Some people prefer presidents who spring from places like Greenwich CT.
=================
tonetel:
You missed a lot more than just that. See above.
If I exercise poor judgment and subject the people around me to danger (e.g., by driving drunk), it is still an act of poor judgment, even if the danger is not realized in that particular instance.
The silliness of that comparison is explained here.
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.
=================
nieporent:
At least six. And once would be too many, since the claim is a lie. It’s also defamation.
How amusing to find you, of all people, promoting the idea that the government always does the right thing. Most US airlines impose restrictions on very pregnant fliers [link]. (Typically they require a letter from a doctor showing the doctor’s consent. Palin supposedly informed her doctor, but she did not ask for her doctor’s consent.) Since you often promote the virtues of free enterprise, presumably you would agree that chances are they are not doing this for no reason.
Taking a long flight while on the verge of childbirth is an irresponsible act. Palin is irresponsible.
I responded to your “proof” here. Where is your response to what I cited here? Answer: nowhere.
In your dreams. You are pointing to a thread about the Petumenos report. That report says nothing to address the lies I’ve documented. Aside from that, the report is a joke, as I demonstrated in detail here. Where have you or anyone else responded to those facts? Answer: nowhere.
Palin repeatedly accused Wooten of being violent and abusive, even though the court had ruled that he was not violent or abusive. Palin lied about what the court said, just like she lied about what Branchflower said. Why are you defending a liar?
=================
theo:
You are suggesting that Palin asked for her doctor’s consent. That claim is false: “Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.” As martha pointed out.
Yes, her doctor stated, after-the-fact, “I don’t think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back.” What do you expect the doctor to say, that her famous patient is an idiot? The key point is that “Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly.”
=================
jaimeintexas:
There are many answers to that, but one of them is lying repeatedly.
I am amused to read that you have read things in this thread that have never been said.
December 5, 2009, 8:10 pmmariner says:
Andrew J. Lazarus:
Basically Andrew I’m not going to STFU.
I’m not clueless, I’m disagreeing with you. Deal with it, preferably without the name-calling.
If it’s so easy to find liberals decrying corruption in the Democratic party, why is that corruption so widespread, and why are so many corrupt Democrats still in office, years after their corruption became public knowledge?
Again, one thing that stands out about Sarah Palin is that she didn’t just talk about exposing and punishing corruption. When she had the opportunity she actually did so vigorously, and that makes her different from the great majority of politicians of any party.
December 5, 2009, 8:40 pmIndy says:
Palin does not operate in a world which only includes the GOP and its increasingly conservative base on the one side and Democrats on the other. There are a lot of us who are Independents, unaffiliated with either party. Early this summer, one analyst (I forget where I saw it on the web) described Independents as people who are solution oriented, put off by hyperpartisanship, and who often lean conservative on fiscal matters and moderate or liberal on social issues. Since that assessment was published, the pool of Independents has grown to include some populists and some “tea party” activists.
Traditional independents who, like I, are solution oriented and dislike hyperpartisanship, are not going to be won over by arguments about one party being better or more righteous or more against corruption than the other. We know that problems such as corruption are systemic, unrelated to ideology or party affiliation, inherent in human nature and likely to occur in certain environments. To argue that one party is less corrupt than the other is not going to sound realistic to us. To do so creates too much cognitive dissonance, especially when we are told at the same time to respect values such as accountability. We’re out in the working world. We know how organizations operate, how some people game the system while others try hard to walk the straight and narrow, how hubris and arrogance and self righteousness can lead all sorts of people astray. Washington is no different than any of your workplaces. There is no magic bubble that enfolds and ennobles people of one party but not he other. Both parties have good and bad points and strong and weak people in them.
We Indys want leaders who talk to us like adults, who respect us by not feeding us hyperbole and cheerleading lines and plain old baloney. The challenges we face as a nation are way too complex for that.
December 5, 2009, 8:44 pmIndy says:
On the face of it, Palin running as an anti-corruption candidate in Alaska sounded good. How things played out longterm isn’t clear. A lot of such problems are systemic and very hard to fix, as they are often cultural or environmental and not always tied to one time actions by specific individuals.
What I don’t understand is what lay behind Sarah Palin’s judgment that her husband could partake in certain areas involving state business, sitting in on meetings, speaking to officials on matters related to her gubernatorial powers, and whatnot. I’ve never done that on the job with a loved one. While I understand that one might bond with a spouse or partner and find it him or her a sounding board and confidante like no other – great if one has that — most of us don’t bring them the office to hang out with us. Beyond that, doesn’t government depend on “need to know” compartmentalization on some matters?
Bill Clinton announced publicly that he was putting Hillary in charge of health care. There were all sorts of tensions and difficulties within the White House and among some government officials due to the way the East and West Wing offices and staffs operated. It was the first time a FLOTUS played an official role in policy making. Trying to get consensus and craft a unified message was even more difficult than it usually is in the White House. But at least Hillary had an official, publicly announced role. The extent to which she did became a FACA issue in litigation over the health care task force. DOJ argued that the First Lady acted, as a practical matter, as an official of the U.S. government in her interactions with the task force. Todd Palin never had an official role in the Palin administration yet there were reports of Todd representing her interests in some matters. I don’t know if Sarah Palin sought legal advice on what her spouse could and could not do prior to the investigations that occurred last year. Or whether she just received bad advice on the extent to which a non-governmental actor could participate.
December 5, 2009, 9:21 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
mariner,
Hey, I was just riffing on “hare-bringer of doom,” which sounds like something out of the dustier corners of Norse folklore.
jukeboxgrad,
Once the child is born, then there is a child. So if I deliberately deliver a child under unnecessarily dangerous conditions, and therefore the child (i.e., post-birth) is subject to real danger, I think I might have legal problems.
I don’t think so. Any suggestion that a pregnant woman is in any way responsible for the health of a child that, in law, doesn’t exist yet is heresy to NARAL & co., and while laws delineating some such responsibility are repeatedly proposed, they generally don’t pass. Googling on this subject (in an effort to see if Palin could in fact be charged with “child endangerment” or some such), I found that there’s something currently proposed in AK, but it isn’t law or anything close to it.
To all and sundry: I’m really, really grateful to y’all for spelling “Dulak” with a K and no C, and “Michelle” with two L’s, but, pretty please, can you manage “Thomson” with no P?
December 5, 2009, 9:40 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
I say Palin resigned to protect her family, and for the good of Alaska, I accept her explanation, and consider it a sign of good moral character.
Many here say, she’s a quitter, she ran away in the face of adversity, that she won’t stand up for her ideals, and this is an indication that she’s unsuitable for National office.
I see no way to reconcile this, other than time will tell the truth of it.
But I would appeal to you all to avoid using the word quitter, which is a conclusory pejorative tell. “She resigned” is a fact-based representation of what happened.
If Sarah Palin is a quitter, then so also are Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Hillary Clinton, who all left the challenges of elected office for the sinecure of a Federal appointment.
December 5, 2009, 9:52 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Not a surprise, although it is a pity. Do you have any evidence that liberals are more tolerant of corruption? I had no trouble showing that liberals, at least, liberal bloggers, have no tolerance for corruption.
The FBI didn’t raid Cunningham’s office. There wasn’t any outcry about the raid of Jefferson’s house, only the office inside the Capitol, and the Supreme Court lined up with Congress on that. That’s the kind of nuance that is just too subtle for some people’s brains, I guess.
Rangel and Murtha? Looks like some problems. There are any number of corrupt Republicans, too. (Maybe not so many now that so few are left in office!) I could make a judgment about the political class from that, but I don’t think it extends to conservatives. I don’t think graft is a conservative (or a liberal) value. That’s where we are disagreeing. You’re making a convenient generalization that overlooks a ream of contrary evidence.
December 5, 2009, 9:58 pmDilan Esper says:
Or do you regard the Clinton Administration’s policy vis-a-vis Rwanda as a model to be emulated?
I do. Great countries, like Norway, Britain, France, Australia, Sweden, and Canada, among others, didn’t send troops to Rwanda. Why should we be any different.
Our foreign policy should be about pursuing American interests, not taking up the “White Man’s Burden”.
December 5, 2009, 10:01 pmDilan Esper says:
Michelle:
It’s too much trouble to dig up the previous threads where Theo behaves in the matter described, but you can google our user names and find some of them if you want to.
December 5, 2009, 10:09 pmDavid Nieporent says:
It’s only defamation if it’s false. Not surprisingly, Wooten never sued for defamation.
The link to Wikipedia you cite shows three times, not six. (At least one was Todd Palin, not Sarah, and two were the McCain campaign, not Sarah Palin.) And the three that were Palin were three mentions by Palin, not three times where she referenced it “as proof Wooten is violent.”
That shows ten airlines which “impose restrictions,” which is not “most” U.S. airlines. According to that link, two of the three largest airlines in the U.S. — Southwest and Delta — do not. Obviously most importantly, the airline she was most likely flying, Alaska Airlines, does not. In any case, that link simply shows how you were pulling your claim out of its ass; the airlines that do impose restrictions require a doctor’s note that it’s safe for the woman to fly. If it were an airline safety issue, as you claimed, then the airlines would hardly be asking the woman’s doctor whether it was safe for the woman. And the FAA does not, something your attempt to be witty fails to address.
Sure: so a trial lawyer can’t come along later and claim that the airline should have prevented the woman from flying.
Your partisan opinion, nothing more.
You “responded” in the sense that you’ve never let anybody else have the last word on anything. Your “response” was fraudulent and dishonest, however, making it worthless.
To a list of alleged “lies” where you don’t actually quote the alleged “lies,” and where many of them are simply based on tendentious misinterpretations of what she said? You’re right.
I don’t understand the work of the words “even though” there, as though one can’t truthfully accuse someone if a court has found otherwise. I have repeatedly called OJ a murderer, even though a jury ruled that he was not. So what?
But in fact I demonstrated that it was actually your analysis that was a joke, in that very thread. So when you say “nowhere,” it’s actually this: a lie.
December 5, 2009, 10:12 pmDilan Esper says:
To add to one of Michelle Dulak Thompson’s points: I’m amazed that people who hate Palin for political reasons (i.e. liberals) are so stunningly quick to deride her for making a legitimate decision, based on her doctor’s analysis, that ended up working out. I’m downright enraged that people are considering it child endangerment or some sort of recklessness to dare to get on a plane during the latter half of the last trimester.
I think I mentioned upthread that the only argument made by Palin supporters that I agree with is that she has been subjected to an obnoxious amount of sexist criticism. And to underscore that point, I think Theo is completely right about this particular issue.
My issues with Palin concern her ideology, her honesty, and her competence. But it’s offensive to me that so much of the criticism of Palin boils down to stuff that would never be slung at a male politician.
December 5, 2009, 10:13 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
As a pilot I couldn’t let this little snippet fly by (so to speak) unchallenged.
By “wrong airport” I assume you mean an airport physically unsuitable for the aircraft in question (runway too short, perhaps). By “wrong weather” I assume you mean weather with ceilings or visibility worse than the minimums established for the instrument approaches at that airport.
If you don’t mean this, let me know what you mean.
If you do mean this then, respectfully, I think you have no clue what you are talking about. There is no way that a commercial airliner’s crew, in response to a passenger medical emergency, is going to land their aircraft at the “wrong airport” or in the “wrong weather.” Nor will they feel even remotely “pressured” to do so. The idea of landing on an unsuitable runway or in weather that is below minimums would be instantly rejected by them, because it would so obviously risk the lives of everyone on board.
December 5, 2009, 10:23 pmMartha says:
Wow, you think Suzy and I questioned Palin’s judgment on this issue because we are sexist? Would it be better if we questioned Todd Palin’s judgment for allowing her to get on that flight? Or is it just off-limits to discuss anything a woman politician does that a man can’t do?
If you could come up with a male analogue to this situation–an unnecessary act that had a similar risk of killing your baby–I’d disapprove of that, too. :) Call me overcautious, but I don’t think I’m alone.
December 5, 2009, 10:36 pmDilan Esper says:
Wow, you think Suzy and I questioned Palin’s judgment on this issue because we are sexist? Would it be better if we questioned Todd Palin’s judgment for allowing her to get on that flight? Or is it just off-limits to discuss anything a woman politician does that a man can’t do?
I think that a woman’s choices with respect to where she delivers her baby are, yes, basically off-limits. Ironically, I believe that for the same reason I disagree with Palin’s position on abortion. It’s her choice to live the life she wants to live.
Further, however, and this is why I think it is sexist– I don’t think we’d ever be questioning a male politician’s decision to fly his wife back home to deliver her baby. I don’t even think it would be a matter of discussion. Palin is being attacked on this issue because of her gender.
December 5, 2009, 10:40 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Perhaps, on this baby issue, I might add something.
I grew up in a milieu of large families. The wifely knowledge, passed from mother to daughter, that I absorbed as an onlooker, was that the first baby’s labor was variable, it’s strength and duration uncertain. By the later babies, the mother had the timing pretty well figured out and it didn’t vary much (provided there were no one-time complications). This maternal knowledge is almost lost today, with everyone’s 1.7 children.
I’d submit that this is the case here. Few women today have five children. The person most experienced and proficient at assessing the progression of labor was Palin herself.
In a land where Liberty reigns, the assumption is that each person knows best for themselves how to manage their risks. It’s a fools game to second-guess others’ decisions, especially when nothing bad happened. Sorry, Palin’s choice on her baby is indicative of nothing. How she manages her life is not indicative of her political decision-making and skills (cough cough Clin cough).
Yesterday a lady went into labor on a plane. Over and done with in 15 minutes. No emergency landing, they just re-arranged the passengers, got the lady enough room, various people helped. It’s the cycle of life. What kind of stupid and dysfunctional society have we become if all the right-thinking people consider it highly rude, inconsiderate, and practically crimminal to have this happen?
December 5, 2009, 11:47 pmjukeboxgrad says:
nieporent:
Among other things, Palin said the court found that Wooten was violent, even though the court found that Wooten was not violent. “False” doesn’t get any clearer than that.
And we’re still waiting for you to explain why Palin has repeatedly said that Wooten abused her sister even though her sister told the police that Wooten never abused her.
Not surprisingly, there are lots of good reasons for Wooten to not sue, even though Palin defamed him. For example, a jury would not be likely to grant a large monetary award unless he could show large monetary damages. But he didn’t lose his job on account of the defamation (as sometimes happens as a result of defamation). So demonstrating monetary damages would have been a problem for him. There is also the small matter of him paying legal fees, which could easily extend well into six figures.
Above I said explicitly that when I used the phrase “Palin said” that I was talking about statements by either her or her agents. Your reading comprehension needs work.
Wrong. Every time it was mentioned by Palin and her agents it was done in the context of using it (the DVPO) as proof that he is violent.
If there were no safety issue, airlines would not be requiring passengers to prove they have the consent of their doctor.
If there were no safety issue, then it would be irrational to be overly concerned about such trial lawyers. By imposing restrictions, they reduce revenue. The reason airlines are concerned about such trial lawyers is that such trial lawyers are in a strong position to argue that there’s a safety issue. Giving birth on a plane is no one’s first choice for safety.
The fact that you crawl away when proven wrong, instead taking responsibility, is no one’s fault but your own. For example, feel free to explain what stopped you from responding to this. I didn’t “let” you respond? Really? I guess I must have been standing there between you and keyboard, preventing you from typing your answer.
If that’s true, then you should have shown your proof. How odd that what you did instead was disappear.
All the primary documents are linked via here. If you don’t understand the concept of following links, that’s your problem.
In the examples I’ve cited, this many are “simply based on tendentious misinterpretations of what she said:” zero.
Have you said that the criminal court found OJ guilty of murder? If you said that, you would be a liar. Trouble is, Palin did the equivalent with Wooten. Palin said the court found Wooten was violent. Trouble is, that’s exactly contrary to what the court found.
Your responses to what I said here are just as lame as what you have said in this thread. What you did in that thread is repeatedly make claims that contradicted Palin’s own statements. You made it clear that you had never read the police reports which documented their interviews with her. I demonstrated that here, and of course you promptly disappeared.
=================
roger:
By “wrong airport” I mean an airport less safe than the one at which they were planning to land. Airports vary with regard to how safe they are. And by “wrong weather” I mean weather less safe than the weather at the airport at which they were planning to land. Weather varies with regard to how safe it is.
If you mean that safety is a binary absolute, that is, that conditions are either absolutely safe or absolutely unsafe, then, respectfully, I think you have no clue what you are talking about. Safety is a continuum, and a pilot makes choices balancing a variety of factors. If one of those factors is a medical emergency on the plane, then it is indeed appropriate for the pilot to accept an airport less ideal than his first choice. Likewise for weather. Even though this reduces safety. And it’s still a reduction in safety, even if the reduction is not enough to go “below minimums.”
And if the medical emergency involves a governor, that will also have an effect on the pilot’s decision. Why? Because he’s human, and humans are influenced by that sort of thing.
=================
dilan:
Palin is being attacked on this issue (and on her other parental decisions) because she has gone out of her way to invite us to take a close look at her parental decisions. In particular, in this matter, she chose to relate the story to the press in detail. No one twisted her arm to make her do that.
If she had acted like it was none of our business, we should be inclined to conclude that it’s none of our business. But when she invites us to take a close look at her judgment (I guess because she thought we would be impressed), we should do so, and make judgments.
=================
fleming:
Naturally. And I do lots of drunk driving. And so far, “nothing bad happened.” And presumably you don’t expect me to stop, because “each person knows best for themselves how to manage their risks.” So what if my decision might have an effect on other? After all, “Liberty reigns.”
And yesterday I made it home from the bar without running into anyone. So that proves that what I did is OK, right?
December 6, 2009, 12:09 amElliot says:
Hillary?
December 6, 2009, 12:11 amMartha says:
Thanks for your answer, Dilan Esper. I agree that a woman should be able to choose where she delivers her baby, and I agree that a woman should be able to decide if an abortion is warranted. But we aren’t talking about enacting legal restrictions; we’re talking about assessing someone’s judgment based on her past actions.
How would it be a male politician’s decision to fly his wife back home under these circumstances (not simply being pregnant, which for the record I find unobjectionable, but showing signs of early labor and leaking amniotic fluid, getting on a very long flight)? An adult woman isn’t the thrall of her husband. If a male politician forced his wife onto the plane, I think people would question his judgment. :)
What I think is sexist is holding men and women to different standards. For example, women face too many comments about their appearance. Men are just as visible but people rarely focus on their handsomeness. And mothers are criticized for working, but it’s ok when fathers have careers. You seem to be arguing in favor of differential standards: taking unnecessary risks with a baby’s life is ok as long as a woman does it.
This pre-birth flight is by no means the only thing anyone should consider, and honestly, I don’t think it’s even the most important thing*, especially given the happy ending. But off-limits? That seems a stretch.
(And by the way, John A. Fleming, I share your dismay at the commenters on that article–it’s not “rude” to have a baby. Babies come when they choose. Being surprised by an early/fast labor is different from boarding the plane after your water breaks, though.)
*Despite the fact that I keep talking about it.
December 6, 2009, 12:41 amjukeboxgrad says:
eliot:
She’s a secessionist?
December 6, 2009, 1:13 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I don’t really feel like entering into the baby issue nor the vague library issues, but I will say that Mr Fleming might double-check his sources.
I clicked, and what do you know… [emphasis added]
Not strictly speaking an emergency landing, but considerable inconvenience to the other passengers.
December 6, 2009, 3:33 amotto says:
Ike deliberately set out to appear stupid? This has to be one of the stupidest comments that I’ve ever read in defence of Palin’s monumental level of stupidity. To such have her apologists been reduced.
December 6, 2009, 3:44 pmEric says:
She had a good first year as Alaska governor because 1) she was NOT a culture warrior; 2) she worked well with Democrats; and 3) she heavily taxed big business and handed out the proceeds to every man, woman and child. None of these traits would please national conservatives. It was the VP campaign that ruined her reputation in Alaska, not Alaska leftists. Also, troopergate showed the seriously vindictive flaw in her character.
December 6, 2009, 4:50 pmJummy says:
Counterstrike : I wonder if the medical history is what Levi ‘has’ on her. She has certainy had very little to say in response to his claims that he has enough to sink her.
December 6, 2009, 5:25 pmralphie says:
I wonder where Obama’s lack of experience has caused problems? I’d say maybe being naive that the Reps had no plans on governing, working for compromise, or actually adding to the debate. We didn’t get to debate health care reform because we had death panels and they want to kill grandma.
December 6, 2009, 5:40 pmI guess if we would just have had the experience of Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld we would have been better off?
Obama has failed to get out of Iraq and to close Gitmo. Other than t hat, he was handed a country in the deepest economic recession in 75 years, with two wars not going well, and a massive debt. Yep, if we only had the experience of the Bush cabinet it would have been better. Or at least McCain, who still knows about as little about economics as he did before and Sarah who knows little about anything. Obama is far from perfect but the Reps are beyond horrible where the dems are only horrible.
Paul Pavlov says:
I couldn’t agree more with “loki13″ above and won’t waste anyone’s time reiterating them here. Since the 2008 Republican National Convention, I’ve been waiting for someone (anyone!) to tell me EXACTLY WHY Sarah Palin is presidential caliber.
December 6, 2009, 5:44 pmmark vollmer says:
There is no evidence that Palin was a competent mayor of Wasilla, much less a successful governor of Alaska. In fact, the evidence says that she was a failure as mayor: she left Wasilla with increased debt, and burdened it with a badly located and unwanted sports complex that reduced the city finances to a very unhealthy condition. You can verify this without too much trouble. As governor, in her brief stint before she ran out on her responsibilities, she achieved three things: a considerable level of corruption (you can verify this by checking the Mat-maid scandal), an obvious inability to work within democratic structures (she alienated pretty much the entire Alaska Legislature and got nothing done), and she racked up a remarkable amount of air miles and expenses while catting around the US instead of tending to the job for which she was elected. In none of this is there any reason to consider her effective, competent or honest – but the religious nutjobs don’t care about the facts. They’ve found someone who is as ignorant, incompetent and unable to deal with responsibility as they are. Sarah Palin is no sort of conservative – she’s a standard issue baby boomer, exploiting religious and conservative rhetoric, with a strong dose of hatred of other Americans thrown in. Basically, she’s running a political ponzi scheme to get rich quick, regardless of the damage it does to our country and the conservative movement. There could hardly be a worse choice as a candidate for the presidency.
December 6, 2009, 6:25 pmjasmine beaufort says:
3) she heavily taxed big business and handed out the proceeds to every man, woman and child.
No, she did not, She gave out the mandatory yearly handout from the Alaska Permanent Fund, and took the credit for it. She just got lucky in that oil prices spiked, so the Fund had more cash than usual, that’s all.
December 6, 2009, 6:33 pmDEO says:
Also TOO verifiable is that while her sports center was being built, the Palins built their McMansion…YOU do the math. Talk about corruption.
December 6, 2009, 6:50 pmPalin turned Wasilla into a giant strip mall/trailer park/ meth lab.
Paine in the Thomas says:
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!!!!!!!
December 6, 2009, 8:16 pmEric says:
Eric again. First, The permanent fund divided isn’t based on the recent year’s earnings. It’s based on the past five years of earnings. Second, I wasn’t talking about the permafund. I was referring to the windfall oil profits tax and the extra money she and the legislature gave out above and beyond the permafund.
December 6, 2009, 10:37 pmnohype says:
Have you noticed that Palin has become the shadow president? Just as President Obama uses the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to rally people to support or oppose causes, shadow president Palin is able to use the “bully pulpit” of Facebook to incite people. Of course, she will never be more than a shadow president because President Obama, gifted with an ideal temperament and a genius IQ, has such deep knowledge of all national and international issues that he is destined to be the best president since Lincoln. By 2012 he will have undone all the damage done by Bush. The unemployment rate will be back below 5%, taxes will not have increased, the government will be running a surplus, and peace and prosperity will reign on earth. With a record like that, how would Sarah Palin have any chance at all of defeating him? Only fools who underestimated the talent of Obama see any future for Palin.
December 6, 2009, 10:51 pmjukeboxgrad says:
jasmine:
Wrong. She passed a special oil tax, leading to “the biggest payout in the history of the state.” This oil tax funded a resource rebate that was above and beyond the Permanent Fund dividend: “The state is paying the $1,200 resource rebate out of windfall oil revenue due to high oil prices and a new tax on oil company profits.” More details here and here.
Thanks to Palin, Alaskans got a lot more than just “the mandatory yearly handout from the Alaska Permanent Fund.” You also misunderstand how that fund operates. It pays from investment income, so it does not respond quickly to oil prices. It was Palin’s special oil tax (known as ACES) which allowed her to quickly siphon oil profits back to Alaskans. I see eric has also explained this.
And notwithstanding nieporent’s attempts above to claim that this was something other than a windfall profits tax, here’s what WSJ said:
Steve Moore is the founder of the Club for Growth. Here’s what he said about Palin’s oil tax:
Here’s what Ed Morrissey of Hot Air said about Palin’s tax:
(Emphasis added.) By modern conservative standards, Palin ran a welfare state. And her supporters are screamingly ignorant about basic facts that are readily available.
December 6, 2009, 11:05 pmSuzy says:
Right, but those people left their offices to take a position of at least equal if not greater responsibility. Palin left office to… go on the talk show circuit and write on facebook? I need to see that she’s doing something to improve her experience and judgment. I’m not seeing it. I also do not think business in Alaska was finished and she had accomplished her campaign objectives, so it was time to step down. Leadership to me would involve sticking it out and winning over the Alaskan voters (who used to support her in large numbers) through her integrity and actions.
As far as the plane/baby issue goes, of course she receives this criticism because of her gender. Men don’t usually have babies! But if it was a husband deciding these things for his wife, I’d have equal mistrust of his judgment. I think it was reckless, particularly because the baby was known to have special needs. Newborns with Down syndrome often need specialized care. How could she take that chance? I personally could not do it; not even with a regular pregnancy, so I’m baffled as to how she could, especially being pro-life. More importantly, and nobody seems to want to address this: women voters, including Republican women, do not favor Palin! Only the most conservative women do, along with Republican men generally. She HAS to be able to make inroads with moderate women voters to win an election for the Republicans. I don’t see it happening, in part because I don’t think women trust her or her judgment. Is this fair? I don’t know. But it’s reality.
December 7, 2009, 2:50 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Indeed. And here is an example of a famous Republican woman who doesn’t appreciate Palin’s judgment:
This raises another issue that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread: that it’s irresponsible to have a baby unless there is at least one parent who is prepared to take care of it. Hired help and extended family are not a substitute for parents.
This criticism applies equally to Todd, but he never asked me for my vote, and therefore his poor judgment is none of my business.
December 7, 2009, 7:07 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Just to be clear: you think women with children should not work. Just want to be clear that you’re a sexist as well as a partisan hack. (Oh, of course, it “applies equally to Todd.” And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, and Nixon wasn’t a crook.) So she’s “irresponsible”? Which part? Having sex? Not aborting Trig? Not quitting her job and staying home barefoot and pregnant?
Are you trying to validate Dilan’s claim that feminism requires abortion? Or are you just engaging in extreme partisan hackery?
December 7, 2009, 7:39 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I see you’re determined to demonstrate yet again how exceptionally poor your reading comprehension is. I didn’t say Mom needs to be available to take care of the kid. I said a parent needs to be available to take care of the kid. In this instance, this many parents made arrangements to stay home with the kid: zero.
And yes, the criticism also applies to Todd, and I have no idea how Clinton and Nixon are relevant.
Aside from that, I do believe that in the first few weeks of life there is indeed no substitute for Mom, and even Dad is not a proper substitute (especially in the instance of a special-needs child). So it’s not that “women with children should not work.” It’s that women with a child less than a few weeks old shouldn’t be working again until the child is more than a few weeks old.
There are lots of women with careers who get pregnant and then take off a few weeks or months to take care of the infant, and then go back to work. There’s nothing bizarre or exotic about that. It’s the proper thing to do, if you want to have both career and kids, especially if Dad has 2-3 jobs himself (as Todd does).
But Palin was back at the office 3 days later. Why? Because the people of Alaska can’t get along without her? This is the same person who soon quit her job completely, telling us that her substitute could do a fine job of filling in for her. So Parnell can fill her shoes while she’s paying attention to her book tour, but he can’t fill her shoes while she’s paying attention to Trig? That makes no sense.
When someone puts their personal ambition ahead of the needs of their kids, they are probably also willing to sacrifice their integrity for the sake of their ambition. And of course that’s what we see with Palin.
They’re both irresponsible, by having intercourse without using contraception effectively, in a situation where neither was prepared to properly care for the child. This is what a responsible person does if they’re unwilling or unable to use contraception effectively, and if they’re not available to provide proper care for a child: avoid intercourse.
And once they had made that mistake, they needed to make adjustments to provide proper care for the child they created. But they didn’t.
There is a pattern of irresponsible pregnancy in this family. Aside from Bristol getting pregnant prior to being married, so did Sarah.
And since there’s an epidemic of poor reading comprehension among her fans, I’ll say this one more time: all this is our business only because Palin has gone out of her way (much more than other politicians) to parade her personal life in front of the cameras, inviting us to take a close look. Apparently expecting us to be impressed.
Palin said the court found that Wooten was violent, even the court found that Wooten was not violent. Is it “extreme partisan hackery” that is causing you to refuse to acknowledge this lie of hers, or do you have some other reason?
Palin said Wooten abused Palin’s sister, even though Palin’s sister told police that Wooten never abused her. Is it “extreme partisan hackery” that is causing you to refuse to acknowledge and explain this, or do you have some other reason?
December 8, 2009, 8:22 amKerry says:
How does her ” ignoran(ce) about major national political issues” compare with, say, Biden…Reid…Pelosi…John Forbes Palooka…Pres. Zero…et. al. and ad nausseum? The biggest division in the country at its root is this: certain people don’t believe they are murdering babies. The rest of us know differently. Robbie George’s phrase: “Opposed to slavery? Don’t own one” perfectly describes this “national political issue”. If we cannot agree to stop this barbarism, everything else is just deck chairs. Sarah Palin opposes what Obama, by voting against, approved four times, leaving babies who sneaked past ‘choice’ to die in closets. And go right ahead and dismiss what I am saying, just like those Germans both downwind and upwind said, “We didn’t know”.
December 9, 2009, 8:14 amAnd just to really twist the Cross, ” And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” ‘IHS’
jukeboxgrad says:
I understand your impulse to support an anti-abortion politician, but it would be better (for your cause) to avoid the ones who are ignorant and dishonest. Therefore I’m perfectly content to observe your incurable, self-destructive infatuation with Palin.
December 9, 2009, 11:12 amUgh says:
Why do people like “David Nieporent” lose their marbles at the hint of any objective criticism of Sarah Palin? It boggles the mind.
December 11, 2009, 12:21 pmMike Robbins says:
ok ya all Palin is at heart American
May 17, 2010, 6:31 pmand saying that,she will care for America like a mother cares for her child. A mother puts child first. Palin will put the country ahead rather than her own self intrest. I dont care what anyone says we have had enough self serving presidents. Its time to put your love for our country up front and forget what everyone wants you to think.