The saying goes: ordinary leaders move to the center – great leaders move the center to them. Sarah Palin endorses neither concept. At least if this transcript from her 11/24 interview with Greta van Susteren is reflective, she adheres to what might be called the Go F— Yourself school of leadership.
VAN SUSTEREN: How — I mean, you haven’t said you’re going to run. And I’m not going to (INAUDIBLE) but I mean, in the back of your mind, you must think, How can I reach the people who don’t agree with me?
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK? I mean, it’s easy to reach the people that agree with you. How do you reach the people who are a little farther to the left and way far to the left from you?
PALIN: I think that those people are going to start seeing that the direction of our country right now has got to change. And whether they agree with me personally on my values or the — some of the issues that I really grabbed hold of and tried to progress with — whether they agree with that or not, I think what they’re going to agree with is that we have to build a stronger nation economically and in terms of national security.
And the things that I’m standing for, they’re such common sense measures that have to be undertaken in order to get there for America with national security, with the economy. I think they’re going to be agreeing with that. But I’m never going to please everyone. There’s no — there’s no need to even try to please everyone. Some people will — if it comes from me, they’ll automatically not like what the idea is or what the position is.
VAN SUSTEREN: So how do you win over the people that don’t — I mean, who may have that sort of kneejerk reaction, if you want to — if you want to talk to them, if you want to reach them, at least have them consider what you have to say?
PALIN: Well, for instance, the book is a good tool to get – hey, read the book, and if you still don’t like the positions that I take or if you don’t like who I am after reading the book, unfiltered through the media, then so be it. You know, I’m never going to win you over. But at least give me a shot there in trying to figure out who I am, what my record is, what my accomplishments are and what I represent.
And then, Greta, if I can’t please them, I can’t please them. I’m not going to try. I’m not going to change who I am or compromise my positions, my values, in order to placate or to try to get some demographic or some group of people on board with me if they just don’t get it.
56 responses so far
1 shermshermy // Nov 27, 2009 at 6:59 pm
David’s (negative) obsession with Sarah Palin seems somewhat bizarre. There is plenty about Gov. Palin to like and to dislike. Reasonable people of good will can decide that she isn’t qualified for the presidency. Frankly, I don’t think she should be president. But, I do think she has a lot to offer the conservative movement. She is liked by many Americans. She could become liked by many more.
My wife, who is highly educated and the smartest person I know, is neither rurual, non religious, nor a hunter nor a fisher, nor pro-life. But, she loves Sarah Palin. Though I am more ambivalent about Gov. Palin than my wife, every time I hear gratuitious Palin bashing, it moves me further to the pro-Palin side.
Frankly, my non-scientific, purely-based-on-my-own-observations-view-of-the-world indicates that more intellectual insecure one is, the more vehemently anti-Palin that person is as well. Again, reasonable people can dislike her, but I think the most passionate Palin-haters are the most insecure, as well.
2 BarryS // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Don’t know about others but I’m heartily bored with Palin.
The only thing she does well is quit. Today she quit a 5k run after 40 minutes because it was too hard. I think I will quit on commenting about her from now on. Also
3 Chekote // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I am also getting tired of Palin. I think she will flame out. And the wall to wall, slobering coverage she is receiving from Fox is speeding up her flame out.
4 aDude // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:42 pm
There are several sources of anti-Palin feelings. Yes, there are those on the left think her views are those of a Neanderthal, and there are uppity elitists think she has little to offer since she didn’t get an Ivy League education.
But there are also those conservatives who believe she could be a hindrance to reclaiming power. She does not have a future in national elective office, and if she attempts to reach for it, she will harm the party. She would have a Jesse Jackson effect on the national race, sucking all the air out of the room.
If she remains on the ground, however, giving voice to those who feel that America is headed in the wrong direction, if she continues to be a forceful fund raiser for conservatives, and if she broadcasts her views through television, radio, and/or books to energize the base, she could be a positive force.
It will be interesting to see how she chooses her future.
5 anniemargret // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm
She will continue to lead the right wing side of the GOP. To continue the ‘us vs them’ mentality that is dragging the GOP down. She has ‘little to offer’ precisely because she has little to offer other than her ‘narrative’ which is getting, as others have said here already….boring, boring, boring.
She is an egotist seeking fame and fortune. Anyone who quits her job as a public servant to make money is just that….
btw….what’s with this ‘elitist education’ stuff? Do you really think that almost 70% of the American people that think she is unqualified to reach for high office are all ‘elitists out of Ivy League’ universities?
This the problem with Palin. She is the ultimate victim and she leads the other victims who perceive that anyone that finds fault with her is bound to be ‘elitist’, etc.. All it shows is intellectual insecurity to keep harping that there are others who would prefer our elected leaders have good education and are well read and well versed. Nothing ‘elitist’ about it.
6 lowandslow // Nov 27, 2009 at 10:14 pm
If she (Palin) is remembered at all years from now, my guess is it will be in the same kind of way that we remember the Los Angeles evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, who in the ’20s and ’30s drew massive crowds and vast media coverage until she disappeared for several weeks without ever adequately explaining where she’d been.
After that, she lost her magic and fell out of favor, leaving historians to ponder: “What was everyone so excited about?” : Michael Carey July 2009
I don’t think he will be to far off.
7 Carney // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I find many of Frum’s criticisms of Palin to be compelling, but this one seemed like he was stretching for a reason or a way to be negative about her. Wouldn’t a man who said something like that be seen as confident, comfortable his own skin, willing to reach out but not so far as to tip over?
8 trajan // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:28 am
I’m getting tired of Frum. I think he will flame out.
9 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:28 am
Carney:
From this interview at least,
Palin did NOT say she was trying to reach out.
She said that those who don’t yet agree with her should spend their hard-earned money to buy her book–that means they have to take the first move to reach out to HER.
No candidate requires that voters buy into his campaign before they even know anything about it. Have you ever seen a campaign website that requires you to make a contribution before you’re even allowed to access it?
If Palin REALLY wanted to reach out, she would have put the entire manuscript of her book on the Internet and let anyone who was curious about her download it for free.
10 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:31 am
aDude:
But unlike Jesse Jackson who appealed only to the disaffected blacks in the Dem party, Sarah Palin appeals to some 40% of those who currently call themselves Republicans, according to polls.
I believe that Palin would have the same effect as Barry Goldwater did in 1964: A powerful insurgent candidacy that attempts to drive the GOP sharply to the right, but ends up splitting it and handing yet another election victory to the Dems.
11 grackle // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:42 am
This the problem with Palin. She is the ultimate victim …
It’s a good technique. First you lie about the victim, harass the victim and insist on an unrealistic, unachievable set of double standards for the victim. Then, when the victim fights back you call the victim a cry-baby. Nice, neat and self-fulfilling.
If Palin REALLY wanted to reach out, she would have put the entire manuscript of her book on the Internet and let anyone who was curious about her download it for free.
Always the double standard. Has the commentor ever opined that other political figures should offer their books for free? How about Frum or Obama? Should THEY offer their literary efforts for free? Hey, I have an idea! Frum should donate his CNN salary to charity! Please.
I believe that Palin would have the same effect as Barry Goldwater did in 1964: A powerful insurgent candidacy that attempts to drive the GOP sharply to the right, but ends up splitting it and handing yet another election victory to the Dems.
I guess it depends on how an observer defines Left, Right and Center. To me Sarah is firmly in the Center. BTW, Goldwater lost not because he was far Right but because the MSM of his day, without any basis whatsoever, managed to convince the independent voters that Goldwater would probably start a nuclear war with the Soviets. These days we have alternatives to NBC, ABC, CBS and the NYT so that sort of perfidy is a bit more difficult.
The political and intellectual snobs will never like her. It’s a waste of time and energy for Sarah Palin to try to please the un-pleasable. She’s smart enough to realize this and her lack of concern for their phony double standards, her writing them off without a backward look, frustrates and infuriates them so they try to characterize it as a weakness. Bad leadership? No. Practicality. Reality. Conservation of effort. Thoughtful acceptance of undeserved, unmovable prejudice and stupidity.
12 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm
grackle
Please tell me how Palin was subject to “unprecendeted” attacks? I mean I keep hearing this from her defenders. I don’t see that she was subject to anything worse than other politicians. Hillary Clinton was said to have masterminded the Vince Forster murder. George W. Bush was basically accused of driving the truck that dragged Byrd to his death. I mean, please provide some details as to all these “viscious” attacks on Palin. And how are they any different than attacks on other politicians.
13 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Chekote:
The Dems and their allies in the media went after Palin’s family to an unprecedented degree.
They tried to find out who was “really” the father of Bristol’s baby.
Feminist columnists criticized Palin for not aborting her son Trig. That was utterly shameful.
While liberals occasionally made jokes about Bush’s daughters, most of the time they left the daughters alone despite their utter hatred for Bush and his policies.
Going after the children of a Presidential candidate is really scraping the bottom of the barrel on opposition research.
14 Reason60 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Palin does need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than she could conceivably become President. Mostly, though, she is a symptom of everything that is wrong with the conservative movement.
She has no serious policy positions that are different from, say, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty; her ideas are really just a thin pastiche of slogans and talking points.
Her entire attraction, is herself, and her biography, and her demographic. Her supporters don’t love her as the spearhead of an ideology or worldview, they see her as an identity, a personification of what they like- rural, Christian, everyMom. Its interesting that her base of support is almost entirely comprised of people exactly like Sarah.
They see her as a victim, seeing everywhere a wicked cabal of forces arrayed against her. Its hard not to see her supporters as projecting their own sense of victimization, resentment and fear onto her; they speak not of her ideas or a vision of a better america, but only, relentlessly of the Elites who are destroying the country and oppressing the common people like Sarah- and themselves.
This is dangerous stuff- victimization is a powerful motivating tool, and can lead otherwise good people into violent and destructive paths. We need to take this seriously.
15 JeninCT // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Go F– yourself? That’s really what you get from that exchange? That’s unbelievable. Frum, you must at least admit it’s the most honest statement you’ve heard from any politician in a long time. If she was spewing some of the bull other politicians come out with during the campaign about building a new spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship, you would have a problem with that as well.
Just admit you hate the woman and get it over with.
16 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Sinz
They tried to find out who was “really” the father of Bristol’s baby.
Never heard of this. I know about Andrew Sullivan trying to figure out whether Trig was Palin’s kid. Please provide the link. In any case, there are plenty of nutty things being said on the Internet. I don’t know of any serious journalist that covered this story.
Feminist columnists criticized Palin for not aborting her son Trig. That was utterly shameful.
Again, provide the links. The only criticism I have seem is the fact that Palin talks about her wonderful “choice” to have Trig and yet she was use the power of government to make sure that other women don’t have any choices when faced with such a pregnancy.
While liberals occasionally made jokes about Bush’s daughters, most of the time they left the daughters alone despite their utter hatred for Bush and his policies.
Rush Limbaugh referred to 13 year old Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog”. Besides, it was one tasteless joke from Letterman that Palin and her supporters blew up into Letterman supporting the rape of a 14 year old.
Again, I don’t see anything unprecedented here. There is an ugly aspect to American politics. If Palin can’t take it, she needs to get off the political stage.
17 athensboy // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Sinz, with all due respect,when you drag your unmarried teenage daughter and her boyfriend on too the stage at the Republican Convention, like your proud of her pregnancy, you open up a whole can of worms with the national media lusting for a hot story. Sarah dragged her daughter all over America and put her on stage. Sarah shouldn’t complain about bad press after parading her daughter on stage, endlessly. You want bad press? A rightwing noise machine that insisted Obama was a muslim, a Kenyan, and a commie. Sarah needs to get over herself. I certainly don’t hate the woman, but, she is not ready for primetime imho.
18 JeninCT // Nov 28, 2009 at 4:15 pm
No links here, but I definitely remember anchors and newscasters repeating web rumors about Palin, whereas web rumors about Obama pretty much stayed on the web. Also, we need to consider the fact that politics, especially presidential politics has been drastically changed by the web and cable television. Years ago you never would’ve had a news anchor repeating a rumor, whereas now it’s as if the broadcasters have skipped the fact-checking process altogether because they can just say “according to the website so and so” and be off the hook.
19 anniemargret // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:00 pm
jeninct: rumors about Obama ‘pretty much stayed on the web.?
Are you kidding? None other than Mr. Independent Guy, Lou Dobbs himself, said the ‘birthers’ should be given a voice. No question the Internet has spawned a whole new ugly world of vicious attacks and smears, and that is why no self-respecting American should immediately give credence to them until and when they are proven to be correct.
Palin profiled her kids up close and personal from day one…and then complained they were up close and personal. She had an on air slugfest with her Levi, and frankly I find Andrew Sullivan’s questions about her lies spot on.
She is a hypocrite. If Hillary had a 17 y/o pregnant daughter, the Republicans would be having a field day. The fact that it happened to her daughter, who symbolizes all that is holy and pure, is instantly forgiven. Rank hypocrisy.
And in case anyone doesn’t forget, not only did mysogynist Rush Limbaugh make fun of Chelsea’s looks and Hillary’s sexuality to the roars of right wing America, McCain himself picked up on it, telling the very poor and very insensitive ‘joke’ about Chelsea being ugly.
You can tell a lot about a man’s character from what he finds funny. Sarah is a whiner….she took the money and ran and wants to continue fanning the flames of resentment . Frum is correct… she has no intention of healing this country, she likes the ‘us vs them’ too much. It fills her coffers.
20 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Still no one has provided evidence that Palin was treated more visciously than many other politicians. Or that she was subject to more rumors on the Web than many other politicians. Yet she and her supporters keep repeating the lie that her treatment was unprecendented. The woman is out there complaining about “opposition research”. Wow! I am sure that no other candidate was ever subjected to opposition research.
/sarc
21 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I believe that Palin give up on political office when she quit her job as governor. She has decided to cash in and doesn’t want to do the hard work of learning about the issues. She doesn’t want to do hard work period. But she knows that to sell more books she needs to keep up the prospect that she MAY run for office some day. Brooks is right on this one. She is a joke.
22 anniemargret // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:58 pm
chekote: this is the truth. It is quite apparent when she gave that rambling press conference that her advisors, family, etc…had convinced her to cash in on her fame, and make a fortune. Or perhaps she knew at that moment that couldn’t keep up the pretence for long. If McCain had won, it was a fast ticket to the White House. On her own, with a press leaning on her, and opposition asking serious questions, she cut her losses, and quite.
Now, we can call it for what it is. She quit to make money, not because she was trying to help Alaskans. This is not the action of a person wanting to show seriousness for running for any high office. It is why we see her smiling in every photo everywhere.
23 rbottoms // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Quitter.
24 Kevin B // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Sarah Palin, speaking about Hillary Clinton (before Palin herself was a national candidate).
25 grackle // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:30 pm
grackle
Please tell me how Palin was subject to “unprecendeted”[sic]attacks? I mean I keep hearing this from her defenders.
Maybe the commentors keeps “hearing” certain things from Palin’s defenders, maybe not but for sure what the commentor NEVER heard from me was anything about “unprecendeted[sic]” attacks” on Sarah Palin – even though the commentor seems to try to give the false impression that he is quoting me. My comment mentioned “undeserved, unmovable prejudice and stupidity,” for instance, such as exhibited by the commentor and “phony double standards,” such as exhibited by another commentor, but nary an “unprecendeted[sic]” attack, even misspelled, will the reader find.
I mean, please provide some details as to all these “viscious” attacks on Palin.
Once again the commentor asks me to do the impossible, which is to defend something I never wrote. The readers will look in vain in my comment for the phrase, “viscious[sic] attacks,” misspelled or otherwise.
Another example of a phony double standard:
Sarah dragged her daughter all over America and put her on stage. Sarah shouldn’t complain about bad press after parading her daughter on stage, endlessly.
Obama AND family(including the 2 daughters) was featured prominently over the front pages of newspapers, magazine covers and Sunday supplements ad infinitum during the campaign. They were conspicuously present at many important public events during the campaign. Why was there no MSM complaint, no “bad press”? Because for candidates to feature their families is routine in politics.
I submit that IF Palin had not had her family beside her(as is normal in political campaigns) such an abnormal situation would probably have been interpreted by the MSM as Palin being ashamed of her family. It would certainly have been interpreted as strange and unusual, the usual practice being for candidates to put their families out front for examination. But Sarah Palin shouldn’t complain, oh no.
26 Arch // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Obama AND family(including the 2 daughters) was featured prominently over the front pages of newspapers, magazine covers and Sunday supplements ad infinitum during the campaign.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Obama girls spend most of the campaign in their home in Chicago with their Grandmother? It seems to me they didn’t tour with him (and well they shouldn’t!)
27 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:33 am
I think fair or unfair, she does herself a disservice … etc.
Sarah Palin, speaking about Hillary Clinton (before Palin herself was a national candidate).
The only source I could find for the commentor’s quote is an edited snippet of video from Newsweek. For example, there was evidently some considerable conversation about Hillary’s campaign behavior before the video begins; I would have to be able to see that unedited part of the video before I could make some sort of judgement, whether negative or positive. Considering that Newsweek is not known to be a Palin admirer I would tend to be suspicious of something like this taken out of context and not knowing what was said about Clinton that led up to the quote.
Also, wasn’t Palin commenting on the behavior of candidates DURING campaigns? Yes, I’ve reviewed the snippet a couple of times now and the subject was definitely of advisable behavior for candidates DURING campaigns. Presumably Palin’s opinion might be different on the subject of advised behavior in regards to criticism AFTER a campaign is over, that is, IF the MSM-sourced calumny continued(the campaign-generated MSM slanders against Hillary has long since subsided). Her comment, as edited and truncated as it is in the quote, could be loosely interpreted as: ‘It’s best to keep your trap shut about criticism during a campaign.’ As far as I can tell, that is exactly what Palin did. I see no inherent contradiction between the quote and her actions but lacking the context would withhold a final decision.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Obama girls spend most of the campaign in their home in Chicago with their Grandmother? It seems to me they didn’t tour with him (and well they shouldn’t!)
The commentor should review my last comment and consider himself corrected. The link is to just one of many examples:
http://tinyurl.com/ydl8fu4
The girls were there beside Obama many times during the primaries right on up to the acceptance speech at the convention and afterwards during the general campaign. This is normal, accepted AND expected of candidates. Always glad to be of service.
28 advocatusdiaboli // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:38 am
I am grateful to all who show this ignorant harpie for what she is. She quit as governor because she knew her abuse of office was finally catching up to her and would ruin her national image. I want ethical Republicans to lead this party and she is not one. If there is a weakness of American politic it is the tendency to simplify candidates and make them idols–most Palin supporters cannot find any defensible tangible and fact-based reason why she is worthy of their worship. To me, it is scary idolatry. Let’s try, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, to keep separate church and state. Sarah Palin might find a place in the pulpit or on TV, but she has none in government.
29 Kevin B // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:52 am
I remember Palin complaining about the “mainstream media” treatment of her quite a bit during the presidential campaign.
Also, she is absolutely campaigning right now. Campaigning for the sale of her book. And as such, she invites criticism as much as anyone else (e.g., Al Gore, Michael Moore, Carrie Prejean) conducting an active campaign.
If Palin wants to be left alone, she only needs to quit courting/taunting the media. If she stops making herself the story, they’ll move on to the next balloon boy, or Tiger Woods, or political sex scandal.
30 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:22 am
I remember Palin complaining about the “mainstream media” treatment of her quite a bit during the presidential campaign.
I don’t.
Also, she is absolutely campaigning right now. Campaigning for the sale of her book. And as such, she invites criticism as much as anyone else (e.g., Al Gore, Michael Moore, Carrie Prejean) conducting an active campaign.
The subject of the quote was advisable behavior during political campaigns. But some folks froth at the mouth, throw logic out and equate apples(campaigning for office) with oranges(selling a book) when Palin’s name comes up. The hatred is deep-seated. How DARE she earn a lot of money! The pure effrontery of it!
If Palin wants to be left alone, she only needs to quit courting/taunting the media.
Translation: Palin should retire from the limelight, be a good little backwoods lady and stop being so arrogant as to sell books, have a viewpoint and to offer opinions. Such things are better left to the Maureen Dowds and Anna Quindlens of the world because they and only they possess the required urban sophistication.
If she stops making herself the story, they’ll move on to the next balloon boy, or Tiger Woods, or political sex scandal.
Translation: If she would retreat into obscurity they might stop harassing her.
31 Kevin B // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:52 am
Translation: She should retire from the limelight only if she wants to be left alone. I don’t think she wants to be left alone. As such, I don’t mind having her around, any more than I mind having Britney Spears around. I can always change the channel if I’ve had enough.
Translation: If she keeps trying to present herself as representative of the “real America,” people will continue to point out how unreal her chosen lifestyle is.
32 race42008.com » Blog Archive » Top 10 Cringe-worthy Moments In the “Going Rogue” Interview Sessions // Nov 29, 2009 at 6:38 am
[...] David Frum — through me, through Aron Goldman — covered this the other day. [...]
33 anniemargret // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:44 am
Look…. her fans will forgive her anything, because they are not discriminating when it comes to her abilities to lead this nation, or appear to be presidential material. They don’t care that half of speeches are utter word-salads which leave people scratching their heads saying, ‘…huh? what did she just say?”
If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President. If Hillary had a pregnant 17 y/o daughter, Rush and Sean and all the other right wing talking heads and right wing America would be holding it up as yet another example of ‘liberal failed values”? Does anyone doubt this for a minute?
But because Sarah talks about God and comes from small town America, she is given a pass. She wants to outlaw the choice of abortion for all women in America, but admitted herself that she thought about abortion when she heard Trig was mentally challenged, and then ‘chose’ to bring him into the world.
Her life is one of fame and fortune, and as such, little Trig will have an adoring family and the financial resources to help through his life. There are thousands of women who might have to weigh that awful choice because their child is in worse situations mentally or physically, lack the family love and support, and are in poverty. But Sarah doesn’t care about that, does she? Easy to say she is ‘pro-life’ and leave it at that. But raising taxes for social programs to help these poor women is not on her plate either. How easy it is for these people!
I find Sarah Palin hypocritical. We need to find a better way in this country to, as Hillary once said, ‘keep abortion legal, but rare.”
But the Sarah Palins of the world don’t believe in birth control. There lies the problem. She represents that part of America that is more ideology than pragmatic. Rather then encourage birth control and responsibility in sex, they hope for the best…hope their teenage kids ‘just not do it.’ Sure, in a society that is sex-saturated in movies, radio, TV, Internet, books, etc…. even the most conservative of parents have to be ever aware that their kids might not be able to ‘just not do it.’ Ergo…. Sarah Palin’s 17 y/o pregnant daughter.
Abortion rates in this country will bottom out when pregnancies are reduced. Birth control is the only means to stop it, and when men also become responsible in their sexual adventures as well, instead of leaving women pregnant and then run off.
I find the entire right wing pov on this issue full of simplistic ideology. Like them, Sarah is full of platitudes and God-talk, with no real answers to serious problems. And it why despite the fact that the majority of Americans deplore abortion, still are not ready to make it illegal.
This is why she will never make it to high office. She hasn’t a serious substantial thought in her head other than sound bites that keep her fans adoring her. The rest of America find it trite in a so-called ‘leader.’
34 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:50 am
She should retire from the limelight only if she wants to be left alone.
With the commentor there is only 2 ends of a continuum – which is par for the course among sufferers from Palin Derangement Syndrome(PDS). She either runs back to Alaska and shuts up or they will continue with her evisceration – and she will deserve it.
I don’t think she wants to be left alone. As such …
Translation; Palin is uppity and won’t shut up like a good little lady from the hinterlands. Therefore she is fair game.
I don’t mind having her around, any more than I mind having Britney Spears around. I can always change the channel if I’ve had enough.
The commentor doesn’t “mind having her around” but is incensed that she speaks out and has the temerity to promote her book. That’s fair and consistent, isn’t it? Well, isn’t it?
If she keeps trying to present herself as representative of the “real America,” people will continue to point out how unreal her chosen lifestyle is.
Many of the jibes Palin receives are vague and difficult to translate. Take “chosen lifestyle.” Does the commentor mean her liking for hunting, fishing and outdoor activities? Does he mean Palin running for office, having a huge Twitter and Facebook following or promoting her book? It’s hard to say.
I have a sneaking suspicion the commentor is berating Palin for having opinions, having influence and earning a lot of money. After all, good little small-town gals from our northern climes are just not supposed to do those uppity things! He is programmed to be able to countenance such behavior only from the Maureen Dowds, Anna Quindlens and Barbara Boxers– who are properly anointed by the MSM.
35 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:26 am
The devil made her do it.
36 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:02 am
annie
You have done an excellent job outlining in your post #33, the reasons why I feel that “social issues” do more harm for the GOP than good. It makes the party look hypocritical. I have said this many times, voters will forgive an honest mistake but they will NOT forgive rank hypocrisy. Of course, everytime I say this in Republicans circles the immediate reply is that SoCons are a key constituency and they provide the “boots on the ground” during elections. That may be so but at what cost? The cost is that we lose independents and people like you are truly interested in solving problems more than ideology.
Again, I will repeat. You cannot say you don’t want government involved in housing, healthcare and other issues and then turn around an advocate that government regulate people’s private lives. You cannot say that you want a federalist approach to social issues and at the same time push for the HLA and Marriage Constitutional Amendment. It makes the party look hypocritical.
On the subject of abortion, during the “controversy” about Obama speaking at Notre Dame (another phoney, idiotic controversy drummed up by the Axis of Stupid – Malkin, Hot Air and Hannity) a bishop defending the Obama invitation said something that really stuck with me. He said that many in the pro-life movement are more about pro-birth than pro-life. Let’s face it. Giving birth is the easy part of having a child. The hard work comes when raising the child. Yet, the very people who are most vocal about taking “choice” away from women also happen to be the most vocal about providing government assistance to mothers. Again, social issues make the GOP look hypocritical.
37 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:29 am
They don’t care that half of speeches are utter word-salads which leave people scratching their heads saying, ‘…huh? what did she just say?”
Funny, change the “she” to a “he” and the subject could be Biden or even Obama himself.
If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President.
I don’t think the commentor is correct. Let’s say that Palin got drunk at a private party in an isolated cabin filled with young stud-muffins and while driving one of the boys home drove her automobile off the end of a dock into the ocean and then left him dead and floating in the up-ended, submerged vehicle for hours after swimming to safety herself, reporting it to the police only after many hours of sobering up and frantic speculation with political operatives on how this mishap could best be managed: Do the readers believe that many years later we would all now be offering accolades for a brilliant Senate career after Palin had passed away from a brain tumor? I don’t think so. But Palin supporters are hypocritical, yes, HYPOCRITICAL I TELL YOU!
If Hillary had a pregnant 17 y/o daughter, Rush and Sean and all the other right wing talking heads and right wing America would be holding it up as yet another example of ‘liberal failed values”? Does anyone doubt this for a minute? But because Sarah talks about God and comes from small town America, she is given a pass. She wants to outlaw the choice of abortion for all women in America, but admitted herself that she thought about abortion when she heard Trig was mentally challenged, and then ‘chose’ to bring him into the world.
Sufferers from PDS(Palin Derangement Syndrome) rarely bother to check the facts, content instead to parrot misinformation gleaned, one gets the impression, from Progressive blogs and columnists. Palin opposes abortion on moral grounds, as do many Americans, but would not “outlaw” abortion. That Palin would freely admit that she had thoughts of aborting a Down Syndrome-afflicted fetus only reflects her honesty. One might think that such candidness would be cause for praise, public figures being so often disingenuous, but no, not among the baleful sufferers of PDS.
Her life is one of fame and fortune, and as such, little Trig will have an adoring family and the financial resources to help through his life.
OMG, WHAT an AWFUL person Palin is! She is actually going to provide for her Down Syndrome-afflicted baby! With an “adoring family,” no less! It’s enough to make one’s blood boil! Grrrr!
There are thousands of women who might have to weigh that awful choice because their child is in worse situations mentally or physically, lack the family love and support, and are in poverty. But Sarah doesn’t care about that, does she? Easy to say she is ‘pro-life’ and leave it at that. But raising taxes for social programs to help these poor women is not on her plate either. How easy it is for these people!
Palin doesn’t “care.” Certain things are not on Palin’s “plate.” How does the commentor know this? Here the commentor shows off her skills in mind-reading to the readers. The commentor just KNOWS, that’s all. And the commentor offers the opinion that “thousands of women” are in “poverty” and somehow this is construed to be Palin’s fault. Amazing.
I find Sarah Palin hypocritical. We need to find a better way in this country to, as Hillary once said, ‘keep abortion legal, but rare.”
The above could be a paraphrase of PALIN’S opinion on abortion but the commentor doesn’t know that, is blissfully unaware deep, as it were, into PDS, never bothering to check the facts. Predictable.
But the Sarah Palins of the world don’t believe in birth control. There lies the problem. She represents that part of America that is more ideology than pragmatic. Rather then encourage birth control and responsibility in sex, they hope for the best…hope their teenage kids ‘just not do it.’ Sure, in a society that is sex-saturated in movies, radio, TV, Internet, books, etc…. even the most conservative of parents have to be ever aware that their kids might not be able to ‘just not do it.’ Ergo…. Sarah Palin’s 17 y/o pregnant daughter.
Palin doesn’t “believe in birth control”? Does the commentor EVER check the facts? Sarah Palin wants birth control discussed in sex education classes in the school! Doesn’t THAT count as support? Not in the fevered minds of the sufferers of PDS, apparently.
Abortion rates in this country will bottom out when pregnancies are reduced. Birth control is the only means to stop it, and when men also become responsible in their sexual adventures as well, instead of leaving women pregnant and then run off.
Here the commentor gives the readers the benefit of a bit of philosophic moralizing. All in contra to a false premise of what Palin actually believes, of course.
I find the entire right wing pov on this issue full of simplistic ideology.
The commentor gets Palin’s stance on key issues entirely WRONG and falsely extrapolates to the entire “right wing.”
Like them, Sarah is full of platitudes and God-talk, with no real answers to serious problems.
It’s not like most politicians since Washington haven’t occasionally referenced God in their speech and writing. Oh no. Palin is falsely characterized as literally peppering her speech with references to God, when in reality she doesn’t. But along with most folks she DOES believe in a Higher Power and that is enough for the sufferers of PDS to paint her as a pulpit-chewing bible-thumper, spewing the G-word several times in every sentence.
And it why despite the fact that the majority of Americans deplore abortion, still are not ready to make it illegal.
Here again the commentor exhibits her ignorance of Palin’s actual views on abortion. Haven’t these people ever heard of Wikipedia?
This is why she will never make it to high office.
Translation: We who hate her will NEVER cease our harassment of that devil-Palin.
She hasn’t a serious substantial thought in her head other than sound bites that keep her fans adoring her. The rest of America find it trite in a so-called ‘leader.’
Yes, the “rest of America” will no doubt continue to be misled on Palin and her viewpoints by folks like the commentor and the MSM. These days there are alternatives but the sad fact is that most folks continue to receive their opinions from ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, Newsweek, etc.
38 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:45 am
annie
You have done an excellent job outlining in your post #33, …[etc., etc.] … Again, social issues make the GOP look hypocritical.
The commentor and the readers may be surprised to discover that I am no lover of the social conservative wing of the GOP. Not that I want them drummed out of the GOP, mind you. I think the Republicans are much better off being a big tent party and that includes the social conservatives.
BTW, I am not a member of the GOP. I am an independent and happen to believe the GOP is on the wrong side of many issues, including the party plank on abortion, on much(but not all) of the immigration issue and same-sex marriage, to name three. I have debated social conservatives on these issues in the past on this very blog. But I also do not like to see Palin wrongfully assailed by clueless ideologues. It offends my sense of fairness.
39 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:46 am
grackle
Palin quit her job. She is not viable. She is national caricature and joke and all she does is hurt the GOP image with the indies. I don’t care if she wants to get rich. Good for her. But let’s drop the pretense that she is a serious person.
40 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:49 am
Not that I want them drummed out of the GOP, mind you.
I want SoCons who advocate using the power of government to push their moral agenda on everybody else out of the party.
41 athensboy // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Anyone that critiques Palin is immediately savaged by her rabid defenders as, having Palin Derangement Syndrome. Even giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, she’s not a serious player. When she had her interview with Hannitty, she said she would profile Muslim looking men(probably not a terrible idea) then replied “oh that will probably make liberal’s heads spin.”Thats a statement Rush or Beck would make,not a serious politician that needs a coalition to win elections. She is the Polarizing Queen and just babbles any incoherent thought that enters her head. Entertaining? Hell yes, a serious politician? Hell no.She speaks in platitudes, not policy wonk.As a Democrat, I hope the gop nominates her, Tina Fey will win another Emmy.
42 JeninCT // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It’s amusing to see so many dismiss Palin as a lightweight quitter. Time will tell!
43 Kevin B // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Wow, Grackle, you manage to “translate” what I wrote into something that doesn’t remotely resemble my words or my thoughts.
This isn’t about Palin as much as it’s about Celebrity. I don’t hold her to a different standard than I do [here's the point where you'll stop reading if you if you do think it's all about Palin] Al Gore, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Clinton, the balloon boy family, the White House party crashers, or Tiger Woods. Even Ted Kennedy.
44 Kevin B // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm
It certainly will. One way or the other, to the amusement of many, either way.
45 grackle // Nov 29, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Palin quit her job. She is not viable. She is national caricature and joke and all she does is hurt the GOP image with the indies. I don’t care if she wants to get rich. Good for her. But let’s drop the pretense that she is a serious person.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: We dislike Palin intensely and believe she should be a “caricature and joke” so we will misrepresent her positions and THAT will make her into a caricature. And then we can say semi-clever things like “let’s drop the pretense that she is a serious person.” See how wise and urbane we are?
I want SoCons who advocate using the power of government to push their moral agenda on everybody else out of the party.
Granted: The GOP needs to get back to the tried and true trio of legitimate political issues: limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense and get away from the high-handed moralizing and the quasi-religious social agenda. I have argued as much before on this blog.
Anyone that critiques Palin is immediately savaged by her rabid defenders as, having Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Measured, honest, level-headed criticism based on facts and referring to Palin’s actual, real positions on issues is fine. Insisting on not holding Palin to double standards and objecting to her being subjected to undeserved, unmovable prejudice and stupidity is not “rabid,” it’s just standing up for fairness.
Even giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, she’s not a serious player … smugly intones the commentor.
When she had her interview with Hannitty, she said she would profile Muslim looking men(probably not a terrible idea) then replied “oh that will probably make liberal’s heads spin.”
Uh-oh. The commentor first claims Palin’s idea is ok but she is a wee bit too candid for the commentor and his head promptly, as if on command, begins to wildly SPIN, thus totally fulfilling Palin’s wry prophecy. Funny and sad at the same time.
That’s a statement Rush or Beck would make, not a serious politician that needs a coalition to win elections.
Note to the commentor: Palin knows you will never approve of her in any way, shape or form. She realizes you will never, ever be any part of a pro-Palin “coalition.” Thus, she does not waste energy trying to gain your approval. She ignores what YOU might think because you are deep into your derangement and cannot be rescued. BTW, false comparisons to Rush and Beck doesn’t lower her credibility in my eyes or in the estimation of many others. You gotta do better than THAT.
She is the Polarizing Queen and just babbles any incoherent thought that enters her head … unctuously utters the commentor.
Entertaining? Hell yes, a serious politician? Hell no. She speaks in platitudes, not policy wonk. As a Democrat, I hope the gop nominates her, Tina Fey will win another Emmy.
If all the Palin-haters fervently hope Palin is nominated why do they spend so much time and energy trying to unfairly discredit her?
Wow, Grackle, you manage to “translate” what I wrote into something that doesn’t remotely resemble my words or my thoughts.
I think my paraphrases are very accurate. But the readers can judge for themselves and if I’m off then the commentor has nothing to worry about, does he?
This isn’t about Palin as much as it’s about Celebrity. I don’t hold her to a different standard than I do [here's the point where you'll stop reading if you if you do think it's all about Palin] Al Gore, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Clinton, the balloon boy family, the White House party crashers, or Tiger Woods. Even Ted Kennedy.
Oh we GET it NOW! It’s not PDS the commentor suffers from! Instead it’s Celebrity Derangement Syndrome(CDS)! How could we be so mistaken! Other than the fact that Palin is a celebrity and the commentor dislikes celebrities intensely Palin would be HOME FREE from the commentor’s vigorous and often expressed disapproval. And he even stays up nights tearing down Kennedy. Wow. Readers, we believe THAT, don’t we?
46 anniemargret // Nov 29, 2009 at 8:29 pm
grackle: I do not castigate Palin for her *Decision* to have Trig. What I castigate is her ambition to rule out this decision, sight unseen, for thousands of women who are in far, far, far, worse circumstances than she is, or ever will be. She wants a complete overturn of Roe vs Wade.
She has said she would prefer ‘life’ even if her daughter had been raped. That is a noble opinion. But only if you view life through rose-colored glasses. Had she ever visited any inner cities in this country and talked to some of these pathetic women?
Life is cruel. It does not dole out neat wholesome winsome lovely loving families with equal parity. “There but for the grace of God go I.”
The vast majority of women who go for abortions go because they are in desperate straits….feeling they have no other recourse.
There is a percentage however, small thankfully, that use abortion as a mean for birth control. This is immoral.
That is why the only sane intelligent and *moral* answer for abortion is not to outlaw it but to encourage better education in the schools and in the media, and a responsibility in sex. That means adults have start acting responsibly and not just teenagers. They get their impressions from adults.
Is this a sweeping answer to all the ills of society? Of course not. There will always be irresponsible people. But this gloss of moral superiority which she embraces is exactly what exasperates the people that dislike her. And especially women…. because they know better. They understand all too well that women are the ones left to pick up pieces, work two jobs, put kids in daycare, or end up neglecting them, or…worse… the men? Pack up and leave. Palin assumes too much. She assumes that fathers will be there, that mothers will have the financial and emotional resources. She does not live in the real world.
Grackle: You mentioned Edward Kennedy. Or alluded to him. I too found that situation abominable and I too agree with you that anyone else would have been thrown out – and yes, his “Kennedyness’ saved him. But I also believe he spent the remaining years of his life trying to help the poor. That may or may not make him a better person, it certainly won’t remove the stain of that terrible situation on his soul or his life. But you are right in that there are people who have more ability to rise up than others after they fall.
grackle: Sarah Palin on sex education in the schools; she basically does not believe in it:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html
47 anniemargret // Nov 29, 2009 at 8:43 pm
chekote: surely if the Republican party hopes to be believable again they could find a strong intelligent voice – female – perhaps in 2012? Maybe Sanford’s wife? :0) She seems impressive to me.
I want to see more women in politics overall, but not Palin. N.P.
48 Kevin B // Nov 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm
There you go again, Grackle. “Translating.” Now you call it “paraphrasing.”
My “vigorous and often expressed disapproval” looks pretty mild and paltry compared to your strong and profuse rhetoric on this page. You seem pretty absorbed in all of this. Who here is deranged?
I don’t spend much time tearing down Kennedy. You did that (comment #37). I just don’t think there’s any reason he should be exempt. Do you?
Why are you so eager to make assumptions about me? I write one thing. You read something completely different, and then you make up a persona to fit your misreading. I’m “the commentor,” which is how you refer to everyone, so I guess it’s a composite persona you’ve built.
49 grackle // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:32 am
grackle: I do not castigate Palin for her *Decision* to have Trig. What I castigate is her ambition to rule out this decision, sight unseen, for thousands of women who are in far, far, far, worse circumstances than she is, or ever will be. She wants a complete overturn of Roe vs Wade.
Palin, as far as I know, is NOT in favor of an “overturn of Roe vs Wade.”
She has said she would prefer ‘life’ even if her daughter had been raped.
Oh? Where and when did Palin say this? The commentor is very inaccurate about Palin’s position on abortion, hence I simply MUST question the commentor’s accuracy on this as well. Not, mind you, that such a statement would be particularly damning in my opinion. `
That is a noble opinion. But only if you view life through rose-colored glasses. Had she ever visited any inner cities in this country and talked to some of these pathetic women. Life is cruel. It does not dole out neat wholesome winsome lovely loving families with equal parity. “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Yes, I agree with the commentor that “life is cruel”(or at least CAN be) and that life “does not dole out neat wholesome winsome lovely loving families with equal parity.” Where the commentor and I diverge is her opinion that Palin is somehow responsible those situations.
The vast majority of women who go for abortions go because they are in desperate straits….feeling they have no other recourse.
Yes … agreed …. BUT what in the world does this have to do with Sarah Palin?
There is a percentage however, small thankfully, that use abortion as a mean for birth control. This is immoral.
Agreed.
That is why the only sane intelligent and *moral* answer for abortion is not to outlaw it but to encourage better education in the schools and in the media, and a responsibility in sex. That means adults have start acting responsibly and not just teenagers. They get their impressions from adults.
I heartily agree with ALL of the above. It seems on the face of it to above reproach. BUT … what does any of it have to do with Sarah Palin?
Is this a sweeping answer to all the ills of society? Of course not. There will always be irresponsible people. But this gloss of moral superiority which she embraces is exactly what exasperates the people that dislike her.
Ah, here we go again. Palin has the gall to possess OPINIONS on issues, opinions with which the commentor evidently disagrees. For the commentor this amounts to a “gloss of moral superiority.”
And especially women…. because they know better. They understand all too well that women are the ones left to pick up pieces, work two jobs, put kids in daycare, or end up neglecting them, or…worse… the men? Pack up and leave.
As a man who didn’t “pack up and leave,” I resent this casual characterization of men. I raised two children, a boy and a girl, and a substantial part of the time as a single parent. Furthermore, I did more than my share of changing diapers, middle of the night feedings, daycare deliveries and pickups, parent-teacher conferences and all the other myriad chores of raising children while the mother was around. They are now both grown, married, degreed and successful in their careers. Don’t stereotype the male sex.
Palin assumes too much. She assumes that fathers will be there, that mothers will have the financial and emotional resources. She does not live in the real world.
Gee, Palin has a Down Syndrome-afflicted child, a teenager who became pregnant before marriage and who is divorced from the father; Palin is vilified for possessing opinions she doesn’t possess, abused for the arrogance of attempting to earn a good living, castigated for being a celebrity, denounced for having her children by her side during part of her campaign(which is normal political behavior indulged in by Obama among many others), unfairly called a “caricature” and a “joke.” I could go on but will desist for brevity’s sake. I beg the commentor’s pardon but it all seems VERY “real world” to me.
Grackle: You mentioned Edward Kennedy. Or alluded to him. I too found that situation abominable and I too agree with you that anyone else would have been thrown out – and yes, his “Kennedyness’ saved him.
What “saved” Kennedy was the fact that all the Kennedys were adored by the MSM and were allowed ANY transgression. Screwing everything in sight? Fine. Manslaughter, covering up a crime(drunk driving), buying off a judge to receive special treatment by the judicial system in Massachusetts? Fine and dandy. Boys will be boys, especially if they are a Kennedy.
But to remind the readers – I only alluded to Kennedy after a commentor had offered this jewel of a statement about hypocrisy which BEGGED for an example of not hypothetical hypocrisy but REAL hypocrisy, as exhibited by Liberals’ benign forgiveness for one of their own and Kennedy’s free pass from the MSM.
If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President.
You want to prate speculatively about hypothetical “rank hypocrisy”? Fine, so be it – I’ll give you actual “rank hypocrisy.”
But you are right in that there are people who have more ability to rise up than others after they fall.
Yeah, especially if they are on the same side of the political spectrum as the MSM. Then they get a pass. Nice.
grackle: Sarah Palin on sex education in the schools; she basically does not believe in it:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html
In the link Palin is quoted as writing in a 2006 questionnaire that “… explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
Here is the question that Palin answered:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
From this we know that:
(1) Sarah Palin was against distribution of contraceptives in schools – a position with which I agree.
(2) Sarah Palin was against explicit sex-education programs but not sex education programs per se – another position with which I agree.
(3) Sarah Palin was for abstinence-until-marriage sex education – still another position with which I agree.
From this we also know that the commentor is again mistaken about Palin’s opinion on an important issue. Sarah Palin was not, as the commentor contends, against sex education per se – just the type of sex education that condones sex among immature teenagers.
BTW, the article the commentor linked to and other articles in liberal organs that I researched NEVER quoted the question itself – which is typical of liberal and MSM coverage of Palin. I had to go to the blog of the organization that composed the questionnaire to find it out. The entire questionnaire with all of Palin’s responses is at the link below. Read it and find out Palin’s real opinion on a host of issues circa 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/yjdfewu
50 grackle // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:45 am
There you go again, Grackle. “Translating.” Now you call it “paraphrasing.”
Yes, “translating,” or “paraphrasing,” – the commentor doesn’t seem to realize that as used in my comment they possess identical meanings – is the thing I did. I think I have accurately rendered(another puzzling word for the commentor) the commentor’s thoughts as expressed in his comment.
My “vigorous and often expressed disapproval” looks pretty mild and paltry compared to your strong and profuse rhetoric on this page. You seem pretty absorbed in all of this. Who here is deranged?
In regards to the commentor’s opinion on Palin, “mild” is off the mark but “paltry” is very accurate. One person is determined to unfairly castigate a public figure, another to defend her when the accuser gets it wrong. I would much rather be the latter than the former.
I don’t spend much time tearing down Kennedy. You did that (comment #37). I just don’t think there’s any reason he should be exempt. Do you?
To remind the readers – I only alluded to Kennedy after the commentor had offered the jewel of a statement reiterated below about hypothetical hypocrisy which BEGGED for an example of not hypothetical hypocrisy but REAL hypocrisy, as exhibited by Liberals’ benign forgiveness for one of their own and Kennedy’s free pass from the MSM.
If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President.
The commentor prattled speculatively about hypothetical “rank hypocrisy.” I gave him an example of REAL hypocrisy to illustrate the difference. Always glad to be of service.
Why are you so eager to make assumptions about me? I write one thing. You read something completely different, and then you make up a persona to fit your misreading. I’m “the commentor,” which is how you refer to everyone, so I guess it’s a composite persona you’ve built.
Now the commentor finds fault with my debate technique. I’ll leave it to the readers to speculate why … All the “assumptions” were by the commentor and firmly embedded within his comment. If I was mistaken, let the commentor be specific and point my mistakes out to the readers, instead of this vague mish-mash.
As for a “composite persona,” and making “up a persona,” let the commentor be assured that I am always aware of the particular commentor to which I respond. If I have made some mistake in that area, why then let the commentor point it out directly and plainly instead of using oblique implication in an awkward attempt to disguise his lack of debate skills.
And yes, I’m always “eager” to counter unfairness, a trait for which I seldom feel obliged to apologize.
51 Kevin B // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:17 am
You think something that is not the case.
So am I. I haven’t accused Palin of anything other than making a statement (comment #24) that I happen to agree with. I think it’s fair to treat any public figure, especially one who promotes a cause, with that “sharper microscope” that Palin says is inevitable.
Why do you have “eager” in quotes, as though you were using it in context? I asked why you were eager to make assumptions about me.
Once again, you have “paraphrased” my words into something I did not say, and then replied to that straw man.
52 grackle // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:33 am
Once again, you have “paraphrased” my words into something I did not say, and then replied to that straw man.
I agree that objecting to paraphrases for no other reason than that paraphrases were used IS somewhat of a “straw man.” The better tactic, if it was within the commentor’s abilities, would be to attempt to convince the readers that the paraphrases were incorrect. Lacking that, I suppose the only thing left is to attack the USE of paraphrase itself.
I believe I have accurately rendered the commentor’s thoughts as expressed in his comment.
You think something that is not the case.
I disagree.
Me, earlier: And yes, I’m always “eager” to counter unfairness, a trait for which I seldom feel obliged to apologize.
So am I[“eager” to counter unfairness]. I haven’t accused Palin of anything other than making a statement (comment #24) that I happen to agree with.
I have not asserted that the commentor has “accused Palin of anything.” To imply that I have is to erect a straw man. The commentor’s unfairness was contained within the statements that I paraphrased.
I think it’s fair to treat any public figure, especially one who promotes a cause, with that “sharper microscope” that Palin says is inevitable.
Yes, we all saw the commentor’s earlier explanation:
This isn’t about Palin as much as it’s about Celebrity. I don’t hold her to a different standard than I do(here’s the point where you’ll stop reading if you … think it’s all about Palin) Al Gore, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Clinton, the balloon boy family, the White House party crashers, or Tiger Woods. Even Ted Kennedy.
To paraphrase: Palin is just another celebrity and after all, aren’t celebrities fair game? Why insist on fairness and accuracy in regards to celebrities? Isn’t it always open season on celebrities? Palin’s politics are of no significance whatsoever in the commentor’s treatment of her. Nothing could be further from his mind. Sweet.
Also, readers, it is impossible to know just what Sarah Palin thinks is “inevitable” because the quote, “sharper microscope,” is taken from an abruptly edited video from Newsweek. We don’t know whether the subject was the treatment by the media of Ms. Clinton’s appearance, her opinions, her daughter, the man in the moon or anything else, because ALL that was conveniently edited out by Newsweek.
With this type of misleading edit it gives Newsweek(and the commentor) the excuse to imply that since Palin (apparently)thought that (apparently)unfair treatment was ok for Hillary it ought to be ok for Palin also. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Palin is hoisted on her own petard – except of course that most of the petard is purposefully hidden by Newsweek. Yet the commentor would have us believe that “context” is important to him. Gall comes in many forms.
And let us not forget that the subject Palin was speaking about was the treatment of candidates during campaigns and the advisable response by candidates to unfair treatment during campaigns. The subject of speaking out against unfair treatment after campaigns are over was not covered. So … the implied premise itself is false.
Why do you have “eager” in quotes, as though you were using it in context? I asked why you were eager to make assumptions about me.
For the commentor: When I quote the words of others I use quotes. “Eager” was used in context. The context was (1)your question, and(2) my answer. Look it up.
53 Kevin B // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I knew you would. But my mind belongs to me, and I know my own thoughts. Your “translations” are nothing like my thoughts. So you are wrong.
Here’s the url for the video, so the readers who haven’t seen it can see how sharply edited it is. It starts with a question for Palin, pans over and zooms in on her head and torso, then remains there until she completes her answer, when it fades out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk
And to repeat, I agree with what Palin says in the clip. And unlike grackle, I think it does extend beyond the campaign, and I think it extends beyond women. I think it’s perfectly valid to point out how much in greenhouse gases Al Gore (who hasn’t run for any office in nine years) contributes to our planet as he travels around warning about global warming.
Anyway, my work week is starting, so I’m done with this thread. Grackle will no doubt “translate” this into something completely different than what I wrote.
54 dragonlady // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“I want SoCons who advocate using the power of government to push their moral agenda on everybody else out of the party.”
This is a recipe to keep the GOP in the minority forever–you can’t say you support a Big Tent when you field your own ideological litmus test against socons. I’m sure you don’t like socons trying to remake the GOP to be a mirror image of themselves on the national stage, but you shouldn’t expect them to conform to your ideas on what the party should look like, either. It’s just as sanctimonious coming from a secular angle as it is from a religious one. NY republicans are a different brand than those in South Carolina–let the differences be. You’re using their same tactics to drum them out of the party. Do you not see any irony or hypocrisy in that? What is politics if not a forum for debate on morality?
Yes, the GOP needs moderates and independents to effectively govern–the math shows Dems have always outnumbered Republicans. It’s just not for expediency–to have a diversity of opinion in the party is a good thing. Who wants stifling conformity? But besides getting moderates and independents, the GOP has to be somewhat united to win. Drumming the socons out will just cause them stay home and the Repubs will be permanently out of power. Better to co-opt them by showing most Americans are sympathetic to traditional views, but laissez faire on the federal govt’s role in this arena. Better to appeal to their sense of American exceptionalism and originalist interpretations of the Constitution where the founders envisioned the localities and states deciding for themselves these issues. Here is where they will have more likely success in making progress on their social agenda.
Just to be clear, I do not support the recent 10-point litmus test that came out of some on the right to fund GOP candidates, either. Conservatives are split on this. Many do not want any ideological test whatsoever–we want more of a conservative philosophical outlook vs an ideological one, as Peggy Noonan once wrote about.
55 dragonlady // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“Still no one has provided evidence that Palin was treated more visciously than many other politicians.”
Chekote, I know we disagree on Palin so I’ll put those arguments aside, but if you believe she hasn’t been treated any worse than any other candidate, no amount of links I supply will convince you otherwise. I do not believe you’re being objective about this. Do you honestly believe the MSM treated Joe Biden’s gaffes in the same manner as Palin’s mis-steps? Or even her background and governing credientals in the same manner as Obama’s?
If you really want to research it, I suggest you start with Matthew Continetti’s book on the media’s treatment of her, or Joe Ziegler’s documentary. Obama joked at the correspondents dinner that most of them voted for him anyway. McCain also stated he was taken aback by the press treatment of her and haven’t seen anything like this before.
Here’s a link to a poll that shows >60% of voters to include the majority of independents do not believe the press treated Palin fairly: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091122094739.aspx
56 grackle // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm
The commentor, earlier: You think something that is not the case.
My response: I disagree.
I knew you would. But my mind belongs to me, and I know my own thoughts. Your “translations” are nothing like my thoughts. So you are wrong.
The commentor’s mind, thankfully, belongs to him alone. His thoughts are his thoughts, too, but if he wants his thoughts unobserved then he should keep his thoughts to himself. On the other hand his comments are public. After his thoughts are keyed into the comments they belong in a certain sense to any reader.
I believe my paraphrases are accurate and I stand by every one of them. The commentor would be better off pointing out to the readers where and how he believes I am paraphrasing inaccurately instead of offering cryptic, unexplained remarks that I am somehow “wrong.”
Here’s the url for the video, so the readers who haven’t seen it can see how sharply edited it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk
The video opens with this question posed to Palin: “When you look at the coverage, when you listen to the conversations, what do you see?”
But Newsweek does not let us see the interview BEFORE the question. That’s a pretty “sharp” edit, alright. Anyone can be made to look bad by this type of selective editing. What specifics were discussed, what issues were interpreted, what examples of coverage were cited, all this is known only to the editors of Newsweek – who I do not trust at all.
So when the commentor quotes from Palin’s reply it is impossible to know just what Sarah Palin thinks is “inevitable” because the quote, “sharper microscope,” is taken from an abruptly edited video. We don’t know whether the subject was the treatment by the media of Ms. Clinton’s appearance, her opinions, her daughter, the man in the moon or anything else, because ALL that was conveniently edited out by Newsweek.
With this type of misleading edit it gives Newsweek(and the commentor) the excuse to imply that since Palin (apparently)thought that (apparently)unfair treatment was ok for Hillary it ought to be ok for Palin also. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Palin is hoisted on her own petard – except of course that most of the petard is purposefully hidden by Newsweek.
And the subject Palin was speaking about was the treatment of candidates during campaigns and the advisable response by candidates to unfair treatment during campaigns. The subject of speaking out against unfair treatment after campaigns are over was not covered. So … the implied premise itself is false.
And to repeat, I agree with what Palin says in the clip.
Myself, I wouldn’t know whether to agree or disagree since we cannot know what was discussed before Palin’s response because Newsweek edited it out. Or after Palin’s answer, for that matter. Really, I would have to view the entire interview before making any kind of assessment. It would be like critiquing a movie from a trailer.
And unlike grackle, I think it does extend beyond the campaign, and I think it extends beyond women.
Actually my point was that since the campaign is over, and that since Palin was discussing advisable behavior for candidates during campaigns, that Palin’s response was in no way inconsistent with fighting back against unfair coverage after the campaign is over. And I also believe that what Palin said applies equally well to men – I never said it didn’t. Straw men are popping up all over.
Just to nail it down, clearly the subject was advisable response from candidates during campaigns. The header for the video:
At a NEWSWEEK forum on Women in Leadership last March, Alaska governor Sarah Palin was asked if she thought Hillary Clinton was being treated unfairly in the press.
March, 2008, was smack dab in the middle of the Democratic primary campaigns.
Grackle will no doubt “translate” this into something completely different than what I wrote.
That’s for the readers to judge.
You must log in to post a comment.