Sarah Palin Steps Down as Governor: Let the speculation commence

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:59 pm

fable wrote:Yeah, I think the blatant incompetence involved in that one even got through the DC pundits' mind control domes. And of course, regional newscasters got involved, which took the emphasis into the so-called heartland, which, surprisingly enough, didn't give a **** about the DC pundits and their opinions.

One of my favourite clips was from Anderson Cooper on CNN when he was interviewing one of the senators from Louisiana (a
Democratic one, no less). She was thanking Bush and Clinton for rousing support, to all the lawmakers for going back to Congress and approving aid bills, thanking rescue workers, etc. Anderson Cooper then interrupted her and, with something approaching tears of fury in his eyes, told her "Excuse me, Senator, but I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets for the past few days."

There's another good clip of a FOX News reporter that was all haggard looking reporting outside of the Superdome, holding a baby, and was shouting at the camera: "Look at this baby! Send help! What is going on? LOOK AT THIS BABY!" Pretty stirring stuff from a media that was mostly dormant for the first five years of Bush.

Anyways, back on topic. If Palin is on the lecture circuit and speaking at rallies to raise funds for a run for the next three years, she'll probably be in a good position to run against her presumed rivals like Romney and Huckabee. And, if those are your options for 2012, it's not a good day to be part of the GOP.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:50 am

Nightmare wrote:There's another good clip of a FOX News reporter that was all haggard looking reporting outside of the Superdome, holding a baby, and was shouting at the camera: "Look at this baby! Send help! What is going on? LOOK AT THIS BABY!" Pretty stirring stuff from a media that was mostly dormant for the first five years of Bush.

The sad thing was that as soon as the spot coverage ceased, so did the emotion-driven honesty of the media. Fox in particular went back into "Bush's perfect" mode almost at once, and ran a number of disgusting pieces blaming "malingerers" for living out in trailer parks once their houses were totaled.

Anyways, back on topic. If Palin is on the lecture circuit and speaking at rallies to raise funds for a run for the next three years, she'll probably be in a good position to run against her presumed rivals like Romney and Huckabee. And, if those are your options for 2012, it's not a good day to be part of the GOP.

I completely agree. The Republicans are only playing these days to the most radical, fearmongering, anti-intellectual elements of their party--really, about all they've got as their core constituency. They don't seem to realize these people would vote from them regardless, and that formulating reasonable positions and working with the opposing party would establish credentials with the mass of independent voters. Hell, they could reconfigure themselves as the party of reform--but to do that would mean jettisoning hundreds of millions in soft money provided to their elected officials. (Not that the Democrats are any better, but I'm working from an angle of trying to provide a legit restructuring of the GOP.) They're not about to take the one step that would bring them some credibility.

So they're left with Caribou Barbie, who has hardly ever finished a job she was appointed or elected to, and who makes a complete mess of anything she starts. Or the two-faced former Massachusetts governor, who once he was out of office began repeatedly mocking the state and people he'd formerly led. Or the jolly, reasonable sounding preacher who thinks Medicare and Social Security should be killed, since everybody needing hospitalization or employment assistance can get that help from churches. Oh, and let's not forget Gingrich, a serial adulterer and plagiarist who just this year found god in the RCC, hasn't held an office in over ten years, and pops up on every talk show in the world, for no discernible reason.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:24 am

fable wrote: Or the jolly, reasonable sounding preacher who thinks Medicare and Social Security should be killed, since everybody needing hospitalization or employment assistance can get that help from churches.

I'm fairly certain Huckabee actually believes (and has gone on record about) that humans co-existed with dinosaurs about 5000 years ago. Ignorance of basic historical (and geological) fact should preclude you from graduating high school, let alone running for the presidency.

There a few other interesting theories abound about why Palin stepped down. One is, in addition to all the ethics probes, is that governing just isn't very fun in a recession, and the possibility that she would muck up the whole situation would be bad for her record (so she quits instead). [url="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/07/03/5-6-7-palin-theories.aspx"]Here's a few more theories.[/url]

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:21 am

Hey aren't you not allowed to talk about sera palin in sym? Wouldn't that be going off on your own trip? Thanks?Q!

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:54 am

Fable, you've always had a very bad influence on me. I stopped voting, for example. I even became mildly interested in chicken tandoori, of all things.

Now, put the final nail in my education coffin and explain what the hell Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill is (never heard of it) and why you think castration of the sex offenders is wrong. 'cause I think the idea is totally awesome, even if I prefer physical means to chemical.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:07 pm

Not sure I know what you mean, LD, or want to know, but I'm really not interested in discussing this. Still, if it works for you, consider starting up a thread just for its discussion.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:12 pm

It's very simple. I was just asking for clarification.

You were describing Mr. Jindal's activities and you said:

He approved the Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill.

If that bill really exists, I would like to know the particulars. If it does not exist, I wonder why you mentioned it. Either way, I dont care enough to start a new thread.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:32 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:It's very simple. I was just asking for clarification.

I see. And here I thought maybe that when you wrote,

Explain what the hell Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill is (never heard of it) and why you think castration of the sex offenders is wrong. 'cause I think the idea is totally awesome, even if I prefer physical means to chemical.

...you wanted me to, you know, tell you why I think castration of sex offenders is wrong. Which is not the kind of clarification-leading-into-discussion I care to visit.

If that bill really exists, I would like to know the particulars. If it does not exist, I wonder why you mentioned it. Either way, I dont care enough to start a new thread.

If you just want a brief explanation of the bill, there are numerous googled sites (I actually use Ixquick, but each to their own) that explain it. But this one is as good as any, at least in so far as Jindal's embrace of it is concerned.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:28 pm

...you wanted me to, you know, tell you why I think castration of sex offenders is wrong. Which is not the kind of clarification-leading-into-discussion I care to visit.

And why is my question deemed inappropriate and/or offensive? Because it was asked in a humorous form? Granted, it's highly unusual to inject a bit of humor and sarcasm into SYM's discussions; I apologize for my impertinence.

I will venture to guess you strongly disapprove of this bill, along with everything else Mr Jindal is a part of - that's the impression I got from your post. Please correct me if I am wrong. Yet, you refuse to explain why exactly you disapprove of it. On moral grounds, perchance?

If you don't feel like a short answer would suffice and a long discussion is undesirable, at least in this thread, on account of being off topic and such, I would most certainly understand. Just ignore this post then.

If you just want a brief explanation of the bill, there are numerous googled sites

Thank you. I've just googled this bill.

I am a strong supporter of death penalty for sex predators, especially for individuals who rape and murder children so I am dissapointed that they are going to be castrated instead of being wiped off the face of the earth. But castration is still better than nothing. Castration + hopefully life in prison without parole sounds about right.

Sorry for interrupting.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:11 am

Lady Dragonfly wrote:And why is my question deemed inappropriate and/or offensive? Because it was asked in a humorous form? Granted, it's highly unusual to inject a bit of humor and sarcasm into SYM's discussions; I apologize for my impertinence.

No, LD--your comments weren't deemed inappropriate, offensive, or impertinent. As I wrote, I couldn't figure where you were going with your humor on this one, and I really didn't want to get into a discussion about a law I consider abhorrent in its nature and its implications. It's that simple.

On Sarah Palin: the latest I've seen is that her lawyers have issued a four page release to major news services, informing them to "cease and desist" in repeating any rumors about the reasons behind her resignation. They specifically single out four news media, and mention suing anybody as well for unfounded allegations. By emphasizing her "rights" it seems to imply that Palin, as in the past, still doesn't understand the first US Constitutional amendment is not meant to protect public figures against media speculation, but to protect the speech of private citizens from the government. One blogger whom I already mentioned, Shannyn Moore, has deliberately imitated Palin's aggressiveness in a press conference of her own, and said that where suits are concerned about repeating rumors over the governor's resignation, Palin should "bring it on." This is not bravado. Palin appears to enjoy placing herself in the role of the victim who wrecks vengeance on her attackers, and has done so repeatedly over the years. Moore knows that this isn't the case, and that Palin would be laughed out of court.

Part of an editorial from the Juneau Empire:

Palin veiled her announcement as something much more noble, but the fact is that she's quitting less than three years into her tenure. And, given her meteoric rise to national political stardom last fall, Alaskans are shocked and appalled by her decision to quit midstream.

We say good for her, however, because it's been nearly a year since the first-term governor has acted like she actually wanted the job...

Regardless of the real reasons for Palin's resignation, Alaska will be far better off without her. It'll now be up to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to demonstrate that he'll take the job seriously and that he's up to leading this state during what will be a difficult 18 months ahead. A word of caution for Parnell: Don't borrow from Palin's playbook and begin your 2010 election bid Aug. 1. To do so would ensure your defeat.

And here's a thoughtful column by Eugene Robinson on Palin's resignation.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:32 am

EDIT - Yeesh, start following your own national politics for a while (we've had some great fun with John Howard's successor +1 and a fake email scandal lately) and look what happens...the entertainment in the USA kicks up all over again.

Since I'm a man (and a heterosexual one at that) and so can't have your babies please write a politics book - lots of books - @fable.

On-topic, I hope she does try suing news organisations, anyone else and I'd assume they couldn't be that ignorant but with Palin you never know...[url="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/07/09/for-palin-rules-have-never-applied/"]this article on Palin's modus operandi[/url] ('politics from the gut') was a promoted story on DWs Michael Jackson article that struck me as sort of relevant on this note.

Sain · Post by **Sain** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:23 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I am a strong supporter of death penalty for sex predators, especially for individuals who rape and murder children so I am dissapointed that they are going to be castrated instead of being wiped off the face of the earth. But castration is still better than nothing. Castration + hopefully life in prison without parole sounds about right.

I agree with the bill, and with what you said, but besides that, I disapprove of everything Jindal stands for. Plus I hope Palin runs in 2012, could use a laugh.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:21 pm

Thanks, @Ode. I'd do that, but I'd probably go mad while writing about USian politics trying to figure out whether to cry violently or laugh wildly.

This makes for good reading, though its conclusion is rather scary. As it happens, it's just exactly what I've been suggesting on yet-another-site is Palin's game plan.

Sample:

Sarah Palin is not part of your frame of reference. She isn't participating in the worldview you share with your allies and opponents alike. If Obama is the Superego of American politics, the externalization of our idealized sense of who we are, Palin is its Id. She's the repository and expression of a deep-seated psychic urge to blow up the political world as we've come to understand it. She's the dark secret behind Door #3, the conjured vision of a deep-seated lurking anger that is greater than her own.

The "goshes" and "gollies" of the outgoing Alaska governor are a thin veneer for deep-seated rage, a spiderweb of resentment that captures every perceived insult and slight. That's a powerful motivator for a political career. It could resonate with a lot of voters, too, if their possibilities seem to shrink and the future remains shrouded in fear.

Read it all, and quail.

Sain · Post by **Sain** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:17 am

Hehe, great blog. I still don't think anyone other than uber-feminists would vote for Palin, and thats only if another woman isn't on the ballet.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:37 am

Sain wrote:Hehe, great blog. I still don't think anyone other than uber-feminists would vote for Palin, and thats only if another woman isn't on the ballet.

Considering that committed feminists of most stripes do not typically veer to the political right... I doubt "uber feminists" would vote for Palin, even if she *is* a woman. Let's not forget Palin's rabid anti-abortion stance, shall we?

In general, the people who vote for Palin are going to be the angry, uneducated, white and often male.
Think Rush Limbaugh and his faithful acolytes, and you get the basic idea.

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:33 am

dragon wench wrote:I doubt "uber feminists" would vote for Palin, even if she *is* a woman.

Pun intended? :laugh:

dragon wench wrote:In general, the people who vote for Palin are going to be the angry, uneducated, white and often male.
Think Rush Limbaugh and his faithful acolytes, and you get the basic idea.

Fully agree with this too.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:40 pm

Palin is undoubtedly going against the grain, but that doesn't ensure success at all. Sure, she could ride to success on an "I'm the real change! You betcha!" ticket, but there's very little that she would be able to do, since there's only so much one person (even a president) can do to change any system, especially the US government. Obama is trying to work *within* the system to change it, and encountering terrible difficulty....working outside of it wouldn't achieve anything at all.

She may be a subtly talented politician in possibly connecting with the "average" right-wing person, but with in the defined rules of general politics? She's awful, and not even as president could she escape that.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:52 pm

subtly talented politician...

What subtle talents do you think she might have? If it's connecting with the ""average" right-wing person," I would probably disagree. In a recent national poll by a reputable organization, more than two-thirds of registered Republicans said they wouldn't want Palin as a president or vice-president. The number was under 10% for independents.

Now, if you'd written, "average fringe wingnut who's mad at everybody and won't take it anymore," I'd probably agree with you. At least, about the connecting part. The subtle bit is still throwing me.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:14 pm

Well, I referring the supposed talents that the article suggested she had. I didn't really mean that I believed she actually had any.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:06 pm

Nightmare wrote:Well, I referring the supposed talents that the article suggested she had. I didn't really mean that I believed she actually had any.

Which article? The last one I linked to? Because "subtle" wasn't a word I'd found in it.

Really, Palin's appeal is to people too stupid or willingly ignorant to examine their own lives and better them. They're always looking for someone else to blame their problems on--those of Asian descent, African descent, anyone who speaks a different language or worships in the wrong church or worse yet, doesn't worship, at all. Someone who went to a university. Someone who stops and thinks. Any and all of the above. Her chip on her shoulder mirrors theirs, but there's nothing subtle about that appeal. It's incoherent anger given a spokesperson who's just articulate enough to string words together without meaning too much.