RSS Feed MenuMatthew Continetti’s long cover story for the Weekly Standard about Gov. Sarah Palin mostly covers familiar ground. The governor’s own quoted remarks also mostly reprise things she has said elsewhere. Still, the story contains two revealing and thought-provoking statements by the outbound Alaskan.
Continetti quotes this further explanation by Palin of her decision to resign:
For Palin to remain shuttling between Juneau, Anchorage, and Wasilla would waste both her and her constituents’ time. “I cannot waste time. I cannot waste resources.”
Palin did not have to commute between the three cities. That was her choice, and if she regrets it, she has the alternative of settling in Juneau full-time to do her job. Palin’s successor Sean Parnell is a resident of Anchorage. If he decides he wants to spend time at home, he too will have to shuttle. Is the suggestion that the shuttling is not too big a waste of time for him? Perhaps for some reason a different standard applies…
Here’s an even more remarkable quote:
“I can’t fight for what’s right when I’m shackled to the governor’s seat.”
Why not? Isn’t a governor’s seat actually one of the very best places in America from which to fight for what is right? It’s a place of responsibility and decision, unlike even the best-paid rostrum on the rubber-chicken circuit.
Palin’s preference for the latter over the former tells us something about what she really seeks in her future: more glamour, less work; more money, less criticism. Well, who can blame her for making that choice? But understanding the choice better will not lead anyone to admire it more.
barker13 // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Re: Chekote // Jul 13, 2009 at 6:23 pm –
“…she will be free from Alaska on 7/26. Let’s see what she does.”
Fair enough.
(*HANDSHAKE*)
BILL
sdspringy // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:53 am
Otto: Sanford, Vitter and Ensign were spouting about family values while bonking in Argentina, Nevada and Washington brothels…….There’s a qualitive difference although it seems beyond your wit to see it.
Really, the Dems have Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, Frank and his lovers brothel, all reelected by the never having to say your sorry party. Then there is Gary Hart. The hypocrisy is that after the media sunk Hart’s campaign over his morality, they took a sacred vow. Never sink a Dem over another woman or for that matter anyother guy. Clinton sailed through the media without a wrinkle, no pretty ladies on his lap ever showed. No matter how many came forward, bimbos all, and scorned by the press. No Dem will lose his seat for infidelity, well except that governor who was married, and then he was homosexual, then he resigned but no one ever said his political career was over. Unlike Palin, riddle me that Batman.
Chek: No. In case you haven’t noticed, our team got its butt whooped in the last two election cycles. We are now in the off season trying to retool for the next season. What do losing teams do? Analyze what they did wrong and try to fix the problems
Those elections were lost for reason which had nothing to do with Sanford or Ensign. More to do with the complete disregard for fiscal conservative legislation. A Republican is not necessarily a conservative, especially when buying your vote, with healthcare, and government motors.
Chek:Besides, are we going to say that people are immoral, atheists or anti-values family just because they believe in a larger federal role in the economy, healthcare? Enough!
Well actually I would say they are ignorant. That government run healthcare will be rationed and expensive. You could say the same thing without appearing racist or immoral. Try it in front of a mirror first then go public.
Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:13 am
sdspringy
You need to understand something. The Dems have not made “family values” a central campaign theme like the GOP has. So you bringing up Dem scandal just doesn’t cut it. It is not the same. When you pontificate about family values and suggest that your opposition is anti-family values you set yourself up for a HIGHER standard. So stop the comparisons. Unless EVERY GOP politicians who pontificates about family values commits to being PERFECT, they need to shut up and talk policy, solutions.
As far as my offseason analogy, I used it to illustrate that this is the time for the GOP to take a look at itself instead of whining about Noonan, Frum and others who are trying to do just that.
ottovbvs // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:46 am
sdspringy // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:53 am
” Really, the Dems have Kennedy, ”
……..I never said these guys were choir boys but neither did they……..The problem which you just don’t seem to get is that Vitter, Sanford, Ensign etc. said they were!
” Those elections were lost for reason which had nothing to do with Sanford or Ensign”
………The election losses in 06 had huge amounts to do with pre Vitters like Foley, Cunningham, DeLay and “wide stances” in men’s restrooms…..Not just qualitative blindness but amnesia too
Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Again, I will repeat myself. Voters will forgive honest mistakes not rank hypocrisy.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Re: Chekote // Jul 13, 2009 at 6:23 pm –
OK, Chekote, here’s your first opportunity to make specific critiques of Palin in the context of “same day reaction”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html
Now of course FRUM should be the one to bring this to our attention here at NewMajority, but it’s pretty obvious that Frum’s Palin posts aren’t about fairness or even-handedness or even spreading information; no, Frum’s threads as they apply to Palin are meant to propagandize and smear, not educate.
Thank God I’m here – right?!?! (*GRIN*)
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Now of course FRUM should be the one to bring this to our attention here at NewMajority, but it’s pretty obvious that Frum’s Palin posts aren’t about fairness or even-handedness or even spreading information; no, Frum’s threads as they apply to Palin are meant to propagandize and smear, not educate.
Thank God I’m here – right?!?! (*GRIN*)
BILL”
………?????…..Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.” [1]
The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others, and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness. It is also colloquially referred to as “the God complex.”
Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
If Palin wants to be taken seriously, she need to stop whining about the media. We understand that she and her supporters believe that Palin received unprecendented vicious treatment by the media. We get it. She doesn’t need to wallow in it.
Her op-ed consists of outlining the domestic oil and gas reserves and then criticizing cap and trade as a job killer. If she truly was the energy expert as her supporters claim, she would discuss the impact of regulatory costs on domestic production. The primary reason we import oil is because it is cheaper to buy it from abroad than to produce it domestically. Yet not one word on this very important issue. Second, the impetus behind cap and trade is concern about the enrivonment. Global warming. Climate change. Whatever you want to call it. Yet, Palin completely ignores this aspect of the debate. Third, she needs to stop pretending that the gas pipeline about is under construction. It is not. Construction won’t start for years to come and given the current glut of gas, it may be a decade before anything is done.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Re: Ottovbvs // Jul 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm –
(*CHUCKLE*)
Hey… (*SHRUG*)… there are worse maladies to suffer from; for example, you you’re a partisan hack with flexible principles depending upon whose ox is being gored.
Nope. I’ll stick with narcissism. (*WINK*)
Re: Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 7:05 pm –
Wow. Given a chance to actually make your case based upon an actual example we can all turn to debate… you come up with a general paragraph not citing one single specific sentence of Palin’s op-ed.
“The primary reason we import oil is because it is cheaper to buy it from abroad than to produce it domestically.”
Not necessarily. It depends upon what word prices are. To the best of my knowledge it still only costs the Saudis under $10 to produce a barrel of oil. Depending upon the source of oil, the type of oil, the geographic placement of the oil, etc., actual production costs fluctuate.
I frankly don’t know what the per barrel production costs of “American” crude is – the average or median cost. Do you? If it’s below $70 dollars/barrel it makes sense for us to develop our oil resources. At $50/barrel or less it DEFINITELY makes sense.
“Global warming.”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Chekote. We’ve been over this ad nauseum.
“Climate change.”
Or… as God and I like to put it… CLIMATES CHANGE. (Yes… they do! I swear!)
(*SIGH*)
In any case, you’ve convinced me; nothing is going to change your mind. I won’t try to talk sense to you.
BILL
Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Bill
My point is that the impetus behind cap and trade is concern over the environment. Palin totally ignored this in her op-ed.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Re: Chekote // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm –
Chekote. (*EXHALE*) You DO realize that either one of us could examine ANY op-ed, news report, or blog post and spend all day talking about what WASN’T addressed in the op-ed, news report, or blog post… right?
Hey… maybe I’ve got you wrong, but I’m being as honest as I can be when I tell you that you’re coming across as Otto lite.
As I wrote previously, if you can’t be moved by fact or reason, fine; but at least admit that this is the reality.
As for how cap and trade would effect the environment… (*SIGH*)… it wouldn’t. (Well… perhaps adversely as it would lead to manufacturing now still done in a highly regulated America moving overseas to China, India, Brazil and elsewhere.)
To cross thread a bit (connecting this post to comments made on “The Reckoning” thread) what cap and trade will do is punish “vulnerable” industries and thus regular Americans from farmers to factory workers to those involved in energy generation, while rewarding “traders,” white collar insiders who make their money off commissions on trades – trades that don’t actually produce anything of value.
Let’s say Cap & Trade is passed by the Senate in basically the same form as it was passed by the House and it goes into effect. How much do you wanna bet that before too long the financial gains of trading, of commissioned trading, will often include gains made by the spouses, children, and other relatives of powerful politicians?
See… this is a major problem with growing Washington power over the economy. The more power exercised by government, the more abuse of the system you get from the politicians themselves.
Don’t believe me? It exists already! How many lobbyists are family of powerful politicians? How many “small business contractors” turn out to be the son or daughter of a politician whose “company” somehow always seems to get the contract to do work for either a business in thrall to the politician or else you get stuff like “the kid” gets the dad’s (or mom’s) campaign website management contract at multi-thousands of dollars a month retainer?
I don’t care if you consider yourself a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative, Chekote; what I don’t get about folks like you is how you can stomach the corruption and harm to the general economy and your fellow Americans that stunts like Cap & Trade will lead to.
I mean, Otto… him I understand; his kind I understand only too well. You, though… you don’t strike me as the kind of person who roots for one side or against one side consistently based upon ideological ties and double standards.
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)
BILL
Chekote // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:34 am
Bill
I was critiquing Palin’s op-ed. You cannot attack cap and trade legislation and not mention globlal warming the very reason Dems are pushing this legislation. It is like talking about healthcare reform and not mentioning increasing costs. Here is the response from Kerry:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/15/what_gov_palin_forgot_97464.html
Look, Palin has proven herself to be a disaster for Republicans. She has had eight months to improve her policy knowledge and has refused to do so. Today’s op-ed piece was nothing more than a recycle of previous pieces she has written. Please stop wasting your time with Palin. She is not worth it. Just because people like Otto don’t like her, it doesn’t mean that she is worthwhile. Wake up, Bill!
sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:46 am
You usually lose the arguement of a false premis if that is where you let the arguement begin. Reduction in carbon, meeting Cap & Trade emission standards has in fact been in place in Europe for quite a while under the Kyoto Accord.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awS1xfKpVRs8&refer=home
Rather than hurt profits at power producers, the program became a justification for higher electricity prices, as the cost of carbon pollution got passed on to consumers.
In Germany, Europe’s largest economy, average wholesale electricity prices for delivery the next day surged 61 percent last year. The U.K.’s gain was 66 percent. Both jumps were larger than the 46 percent increase in Brent crude oil.
Taking into account the fact that:
global temps have been stable since 2001, isn’t a story the media places on the front page,
Europe is unable to meet the Kyoto standards,
Increasing cost to everyone, even those not making more that 250K
Cap & Trade carbon emission standards worse than Kyoto.
Wind, Solar complete inadaquate to meet a fraction of current demand or even yearly demand increases.
So Chek the arguement is why would the Dems push legislation that won’t work, hasn’t worked in Europe under Kyoto, will have no affect on temperatures, which aren’t rising anyway. So you don’t have to mention global warming to critique cap and trade. Even though healthcare reform and cap & trade legislation are completely similar. Neither will reduce cost, neither will fix the problem, and both begin from the false premise that increased government involvment will solve the problem.
sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:30 am
Otto:
……..I never said these guys were choir boys but neither did they……..The problem which you just don’t seem to get is that Vitter, Sanford, Ensign etc. said they were!
No Otto, they probably stated something to the effect that living by a certain set of moral codes, ie family values, is actually benefical to the country, and families and society as a whole. To publicly state a virtue to be good for individuals and failing to meet your own goals , having to admit your mistake actually makes you human. To change you stated virture to justify your mistake makes you the hypocrite, a word you are fond of.
To never actually state what you think is right, or moral, or what virtues you live by, like some of your Dem hero, well that just makes you a coward.
Chekote // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:24 am
So Chek the arguement is why would the Dems push legislation that won’t work, hasn’t worked in Europe under Kyoto, will have no affect on temperatures, which aren’t rising anyway.
Exactly my point. Instead of reciting the oil reserves, Palin needed to attack the premise behind the legislation. That is, if she wants to be effective in her attack. What Palin did is the equivalent of talking about healthcare reform and not mentioning rising costs. Anyway, there is no point in even responding anymore.
Chekote // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:26 am
Otto
They just don’t get it. The don’t understand that the GOP set itself up to a higher standard with all their talk of family values.
barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:01 am
Re: Chekote // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:34 am –
OK, Chekote, since you’re still not “getting” what I’m asking you to do in terms of reviewing Palin’s actual words, allow me to demonstrate by deconstructing Kerry’s response that you were kind enough to provide the link to. OK?
SECOND FRIGG’N PARAGRAPH –
“her promise to roll up her sleeves and tackle serious issues is followed by a column that focuses on everything but the single grave challenge that forms the basis of all of our actions: the crisis of global climate change.”
(*SIGH*) Chekote. Second frigg’n paragraph and already – before addressing ANY of Palin’s actual points and proposals – Kerry is switching focus (switching topics, indeed) to “the crisis” of global climate change.
One more time… there IS NO CRISIS. Where there’s a REAL crisis is when energy supply and demand tighten to the extent where oil shoots back up to $4/gal. or more and heating oil prices double or triple and electricity bills double or triple… now THAT’S the crisis that Palin is trying to avert.
Continuing to actually quote Kerry –
“Yes, she manages to write about the climate change action in Congress without ever mentioning the reason we are doing this in the first place.”
Chekote. It’s up to the supporters of Cap & Trade to defend their bill. In her editorial Palin is quite clear about why she opposes Cap & Trade.
(BTW, are you a Cap & Trade bill supporter or one who opposes the bill as written and passed? I mean, if you’re a supporter… well… that seems to me yet another indication that you’re actually more of a liberal Democrat than a conservative or even moderate Republican. Of course this doesn’t make you a “bad person,” but it adds context to this general back and forth we’re having over Palin.)
Continuing with Kerry…
“It’s like complaining about the cost of repairing a roof without factoring in the leaks destroying your home.”
No. (*SMIRK*) No it’s not.
Seriously, Chekote… THIS is the sort of nonsense you’re pointing to as evidence of a serious mind vs. your view of Palin as some sort of brunette bimbo…??? REALLY…???
(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN AMUSED DISGUST*)
Kerry again –
“The global climate change crisis threatens our economy and our national security in profound ways.”
So he says. Palin’s position is basically that even if one is to grant that global warming exists and is a “problem” per se (a “problem” now as opposed to how earth’s climate has constantly been changing over billions of years), she believes that Cap & Trade not only fails the basic cost/benefit test, but will actually HURT America and Americans far more than it’ll “help” America, Americans, or indeed the world.
Talk about “not addressing issues…” Hell, Chekote, Kerry basically skips over the whole cost issue.
Here… let’s quote from PALIN’S op-ed –
“American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. ”
True. Undeniably true. Basic industrial economics 101.
“There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.”
Yep. (Do you actually DISAGREE with Palin here, Chekote…???)
“Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.”
Chekote. The above is called… er… a FACT.
“In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase. ”
1) Do you deny this? 2) Did Kerry note this in HIS op-ed? 3) Does the fact that Kerry DIDN’T note this destroy his credibility with you? 4) If not, then why do this specifics Palin doesn’t address destroy HER credibility in your mind? 5) Are double standards and lack of intellectual consistency traits you admire in yourself or others…???
(*GRIN*) Hey… don’t take that last personally; just busting your balls (or eggs if that’s the case).
“The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”
“The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. ”
Do you deny this? Basic economics… do you deny that the less “disposable” income you have the more rising energy prices will adversely impact you?
“Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.” ”
Hmm… how’bout it, Chekote… I don’t recall Kerry quoting the “Oracle of Omaha.” Nor did I notice you bashing Kerry for not noting Buffett’s well-publicized comment. Why is that, Chekote… why is it that you seem so comfortable demanding of Palin what you apparently don’t of Kerry?
Hey… I’m getting bored. Nice “sword,” Chekote, but figuratively speaking… it’s clear who’s got the pistol. (*WINK*)
Chekote. I’m treating your posts seriously. I’m going to the trouble of actually addressing – specifically – your claims, “logic,” and analysis. I’m sorry… they just don’t stand up to rigorous challenge.
I mean… I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when you were simply blathering on about Palin’s supposed gaffs (and yes, real gaffs… I’ve constantly acknowledged Palin’s dismal Katie Couric interview performance) based upon off the cuff critiques. But now… now when you fall back on nonsense – when you point to Kerry’s op-ed – it’s crystal clear that you’re viewing this as a “sporting” challenge, that Palin’s not on your “team” so therefore no matter what she says or does you’re going to instinctively “boo” her and if necessary (sticking to the sports analogy) root for “other teams” even if they’re not YOUR team as long as by the “other team” winning, Palin loses and slips in the “standings.”
(*SIGH*)
Pretty much what I figured… what I feared… still… it doesn’t make your actions any less depressing to me.
BILL
barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:06 am
Re: Sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:46 am
Re: Sdspringy // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:30 am
(*THUMBS UP*)
If only we all relied upon fact and reason.
(*SIGH*)
BILL