I’m going to withhold final judgment on Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as Governor of Alaska until we see exactly why she made the choice.
Right now, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to Russ Douthat’s view:
A Sarah Palin who stepped down for the sake of her family and her media-swarmed state deserves sympathy even from the millions of Americans who despise her. A Sarah Palin who resigned in the delusional belief that it would give her a better shot at the presidency in 2012 warrants no such kindness.
(It’s a good piece and I highly recommend it.)
Perhaps, it’s because I’ve been spending time these past few days with my sister and watching her delight in her maternity,* I “sense” that Governor Palin wants to spend more time with her children–and grandchild. After all, her youngest daughter is just eight years old and her baby Trig is just fourteen months.
Kids that young require lots of attention.
Sarah Palin is relatively young (politically speaking). She can wait until 2016 or 2020 to run for President. She can put off her political career, but she can’t put off her maternal one.
*Or perhaps it’s a combination of observing my sister, just a few days after reading this on CampaignSpot:
On the theory that the scrutiny of her children was the straw that broke the camel’s back, the consultant said, “From the interaction I’ve had with her, that would make some sense.” He noted that Palin had been “really down” at one point after the 2008 convention, largely from being separated from Todd and her children for days at a time; the campaign leadership was nudged to have the family traveling with her as much as possible, having a major impact on her morale. “They finally let her be a mom,” the consultant said.
I have to repeat my earlier comment, what is it about our political system that good and decent people like Sarah Palin are driven out of it, but sewer trout like Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel thrive in it?
I agree whole-heartedly with Douthat – if she left to be with her family. But, if NDT is right, she gave up her post as Governor to campaign for the Presidency in 2012.
As I wrote in the last Palin thread:
“You’re happy that she quitting the Governorship, breaking her commitment to the people of Alaska, to pursue political ambitions and campaign. She would have had PLENTY of time to do that after her term was up. Again, you all beat Arlen Spector to death because he took actions that were for purely for political reasons. I guess it’s OK do do that if the political reasons are to your liking. Some display of ethics there.”
This post has made me think how I’ve had to set aside some of my own personal and professional ambitions for the sake of giving my kids a stable home life. I think it’s something you can’t appreciate if you’re not a parent, much less if you see everything in purely political terms.
#1: V – I think the answer is that “sewer trout” like Frank and Rangel are demagogues who have no shame and don’t give a darn about what people think about them as long as they keep their money and power.
These characters can’t help but know they’re doing far more harm than good but, hey, you only live once and other people will pay the check.
The amount of vitriol and harassment Sarah Palin has endured following November as a losing prez or VP candidate is no doubt unprecedented in American history. Normally, such people are able to go back to their home states or the Senate or wherever and go back to business as usual. I imagine Sarah Palin thought she could go back to being a governor and a mom, not anticipating that the Left would continue their hateful campaign against her. As bad as it was how they attacked her before the election, it was on some level rational; nasty campaigns are nothing new, even if the Left took it to a new level with Sarah Palin. Post election though, their obsession with hating her is totally irrational. To return to an analogy Dan once made about Moby Dick, it’s as if the Left (i.e., Captain Ahab) lost track of George Bush and needed some new target for their insane hunt, and obviously they chose Sarah Palin.
It’s hard to know for sure exactly what is on Sarah Palin’s mind, but it makes sense that she both wants to make the most of these years with her children and also wants to be a public figure. (Whether she truly aspires to ever be POTUS is debatable.) On many levels, it makes sense to elevate motherhood in her life now and leave politics for later (not that I think she is going to retreat from the political scene although as a private citizen she can pick her own hours with respect to that).
I still don’t understand quitting now rather than waiting until the end of her term. (If Michael Barone doesn’t understand, I won’t pretend that I do.) The only explanation that makes sense to me is that she has gotten fed up with everything and can’t take another sixteen months of this crap.
Sorry for being verbose, but there is one other thing that I think deserves mention: there’s a difference between saying Sarah Palin should not be VP or even a governor due to responsibilities as a mother and suggesting that Sarah Palin might chose to quit as governor to spend more time being a mother. The former is sexist while the latter is not, but I feel like this distinction was blurred the other night when Greta, whom I normally respect and like, was chastising one of the Fox anchors (whose name escapes me) for saying what seemed to be the latter.
I thought she was crystal clear – the endless groundless ethics charges all of which were eating up millions of state funds to defend against, and the constant harassment of her family by the media. By getting out of office she can direct her efforts more constructively on both the political and familial fronts. She stated “she is not retreating, but advancing in a different direction”. Sounds like a wise and strategic move given the relentless hate directed at her and her family from the Dark One’s minions.
I agree, Hunt. When you strip away the agendized rhetoric, her explanation makes perfect sense. Even though she could have governed with the constant frivolous ethics complaints filed by jealous hags like Linda Kellen Biegle — the Debbie Frisch of Alaska politics — the constant distraction was keeping her from doing the best job she could. And half a million dollars in legal bills is a big deal for someone of Sarah’s modest means.
Second, it’s one thing when left-wing cockholsters like David Letterman are just insulting her, but the guy went on national television and said her daughters were whores. People laughed, and most of the media defended him and said she was being a drama queen when she said it was wrong for him to call her daughters whores. Also, left-wing bloggers and Democrats were out making crude photoshops of her innocent baby son. They were also calling her older son a fag, a drug user, and that he joined the Army to avoid jail. What good mother would put her kids through that.
We live in a very sick, depraved era. Even a few years ago, attacking a politician’s kids was beyond the pale. Now, it’s just part of the system. It’s a very sad commentary on how low we’ve gotten. I can’t blame her for pulling her kids out of that.
Well, if the Sarah-rationalization for quittin’ is, everyone was just too mean to her, then Sarah has just demonstrated she isn’t fit for higher office. No shame there. I certainly won’t go through that for higher office. However, she has demonstrated a lack of fitness.
Question: Is there at least one elected position that Sarah has held that she hasn’t abandon, whatever the reason(s)?
Personally, as a liberal, I can only hope that she makes a run at the (R) nomination, nevertheless. So come on (R)z … “Sarah for Prez!”
Snerd
Interesting thought from Ghost of a Flea:
chad: “… It’s hard to know for sure exactly what is on Sarah Palin’s mind …”
SG: That’s my experience of Sarah too … particularly more so after she speaks … I mean, is there anybody on the political scene today who rambles on as incoherently!?
chad: “… it makes sense that she both wants to make the most of these years with her children and also wants to be a public figure.”
SG: There you go, two self conflicting, contradictory positions … not unlike bein’ Gay in the Ant-Gay GOP … Must be somethin’ about bein’ R I guess.
Hey … What if she went to that place where they healed Haggard of ‘the Gay’, maybe they could heal her of one of her self contradictory positions …?
Snerd
That is my hope for why she did this. At the same time, she has a lot of open doors in other possible adventures as well.
VK: “… Are people subconsciously frustrated by the fact that Obama is an empty suit, and are they transferring that rage to Palin?”
SG: Must be … Take Henry Kissinger on Obama, for example:
“… The belief in democracy as a universal remedy regularly reappears in American foreign policy. Its most recent appearance came with the so-called neocons in the Bush administration. Actually, Obama is much closer to a realistic policy on this issue than Bush was.
[…]
Obama is like a chess player who is playing simultaneous chess and has opened his game with an unusual opening. Now he’s got to play his hand as he plays his various counterparts. We haven’t gotten beyond the opening game move yet. I have no quarrel with the opening move.”
Didn’t Powel also endorse Obama … must be that subconscious thingie again, Eh!?
Snerd
You’re happy that she quitting the Governorship, breaking her commitment to the people of Alaska, to pursue political ambitions and campaign.
As if you care, Sonicfrog.
What you’re trying to do is make up excuses for why you won’t condemn those who attacked Palin. The fact that she would have to withdraw to protect her family, the members of which have done nothing wrong, is nothing less than a core threat to our democracy. Do you believe that people should be forced out of politics by relentless and hateful attacks on their family?
Or in this case, did the Obama Party simply do for you what you wanted, so you were more than willing to let them do it as long as it got rid of Palin?
Hey Snerd Gronk, you know what? Why don’t you go hang with your Obama Party and what it says about gays?
And you know what else? Why don’t you explain to us why you support and endorse bans on gay marriage when you blast Republicans as homophobic for doing so?
That’s what projection is all about. You are a miserable spineless gay who does whatever his political party demands, so you naturally assume everyone else is.
North: “… Or in this case, did the Obama Party simply do for you what you wanted, so you were more than willing to let them do it as long as it got rid of Palin?”
SG: This is what I love about y’all (R)z.
See, we consider Palin a (D) political asset. Her withdrawal is our loss too. Personally as a liberal I woulda contributed to her campaign just to hear her incoherent ramblings, wrapped around cliques, and then the other (R) candidates havin’ to respond to her … “Now that’s entertainment!”
Really … REALLY!!! I hope she runs in 2012
The new braindead cultist is a little out of date on Colin Powell’s Obama love.
What’s amusing to me, NDT, is how The Gay Left may be helping Mitt Romney by creating sympathy for Mormons among the Evangelicals.
Could we ask some of the leftists in here to work with our young President and get him learned up a bit?
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5655E720090706
Instead of the drive by media admitting Obama was a dope and didn’t know who the real President of Russia is they say he tripped up. hehe
What a moron. Obama embarassing the USA again. Sheesh
Dallas: “… And you know what else? Why don’t you explain to us why you support and endorse bans on gay marriage when you blast Republicans as homophobic for doing so?”
SG: Well one is politically motivated and reprehensible but rational and therefore amenable, while the other is largely homophobic, irrational ‘good-(R)-family-valuez-hetroz-even-if-toilet-paper-gets-stuck-on-their-shoe’ vs.’evil-gayz-will-lead-to-bestiality-pedophile-marriages’ and so more intolerant and reprehensible.
Dallas: “… That’s what projection is all about. You are a miserable spineless gay who does whatever his political party demands, so you naturally assume everyone else is.”
SG: Well, well there North-Fork-Dallas, quite theatrical and not a bad demonstration of p(R)ojection …. On what do you base my sexual orientation?
Maybe it’s simply a human rights issue for me, where I believe all of us are diminished if any of us are. Maybe its an issue of moral and philosophic, human and social development where I hoped if the Enlightenment project was going to get replaced, it wasn’t going to be with the I(R)(R)ational p(R)ject of the (R)(R)(R) …
Snerd
VK: “… The Gay Left may be helping Mitt Romney by creating sympathy for Mormons among the Evangelicals.”
SG: Ah more great ‘Hail Ma(R)ies’ … By the way, I never really got that ‘moron’ term. Shouldn’t it be ‘More-Women’?
Also … did polygamy lead to ‘the Gay’ or did ‘the Gay’ lead to polygamy? … Maybe Mitt can explain all that to the (R) base-Family-Values folks, Eh?
Snerd
Waaaaaa …. Waaaaa …! You are all bein’ mean to me. I may have to leave here so I can spend more time with my family and pass them the basketball torch and a shout to the troops and the nasty big spend and tax hoop because I can see Russia from my bedroom ….
Snerd
In the wake of Governor Palin stepping down from her job, new allegations have surfaced today in Alaska charging Palin with additional violations of the Alaska Executive Ethics Act.
Zane Henning — a conservative government watchdog from the governor’s hometown of Wasilla and an oilfield worker on Alaska’s North Slope — asserts in a letter to Alaska Attorney General Daniel S. Sullivan that Palin has “been charging and pocketing per diem to live in her home and has used the process for a personal gain since being elected.”
The Washington Post first broke this story last September during the 2008 presidential race, but until now, no formal ethics charges have been brought on the matter in Alaska.
[…]
In February, Palin was required to pay back income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her home overlooking Lake Lucille in Wasilla. Little more than two weeks ago she was forced to pay back the State of Alaska more than $8,100.00 for nine trips taken by her children that she had improperly charged as being part of official state business.
Henning contends the per diem is another way for the Alaska governor to line her pockets at the state’s expense …
Hey that reminds me … Anyone hear whatever happen to all them tens of thousands of dollars of clothes Palin bought during the campaign …?
Snerd
#9: Snerd…
Is it a requirement that libs have to be obtuse?
There’s a difference between attacking a politician’s ideas (or the politician him/herself). Is that too hard to understand? Can you wrap your mind around the concept?
There was a time when attacking the family (especially minor children) of a politicians was taboo – accepted in decent society as being out of bounds. That isn’t to say that the line wasn’t crossed now and then but even Nixon’s family was spared during that debacle.
In cause you don’t know what obtuse means, the definition is: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Anyone hear whatever happened to the $1.74 million Chairman Obama owed the city of Chicago?
Yeah. Sheila Jackson Lee used to be the master of talking a lot while saying absolutely nothing until your beloved lord and master Chairman Obama came along.
Every time we’ve ever heard a politician or business person leave a job so they can “spend more time with their family”, we know it to be utter rubbish. Why should Sarah Palin’s excuse be any different? The fact she quit her job, yet attacked people who are quitters during her resignation speech is pretty telling as well. Who exactly does she consider to be dead fish anyway? The presidential campaign proved she’s not adverse to speaking in mixed metaphors and vagaries; glad to see her resignation speech was no different.
SloCal: “… There’s a difference between attacking a politician’s ideas (or the politician him/herself).”
SG: I don’t think I get your ‘obtuse angle’ there SloCal …
Your use of brackets grammarically implies that the content thereof (politician the person) is an extension of, or restatement of, the phrase preceding it (politician’s ideas). What you intended to do I think, was to contrast politician and their ideas, obtusely muddled though it was in construct – if ‘obtusely muddled ‘ isn’t too oxymo(R)onic for you ….
Do you have anything you can get ’round that … ;-0
Snerd
p.s. Isn’t i(R)ony grand!
Kev: “… Who exactly does she consider to be dead fish anyway? “
SG: I had the same question … but I think it was either the basketball hoop, or the First Dude’s snow machine fuel injector …
Snerd
Your hifalutin comment was shot to hell with your use of the word grammarically. Try using ezr wurds next time.
SloCal(R): “… In cause you don’t know what obtuse means, the definition is … “
SG: Wait, let me guess … has it got something to do with “Case and Effect”? Annoying that while on your high horse, you end up being slow and insensitive to your own irony … !
Snerd
p.s.
SloCal(R): “… Your hifalutin comment was shot to hell with your use of the word grammarically.”
SG: Well at least you got the punch wurd …
Snerd
Oooops! SloCal, my apologies! I Con-fused you with ThatGayGuy.
It wasn’t you who tripped over the punch line SloCal … it was ThatGuy. However, he too appears to have approached it from an obtuse angle ….
Snerd
Maybe it’s simply a human rights issue for me, where I believe all of us are diminished if any of us are.
Not likely, given how you supported the namecalling and dehumanization of Trig Palin and the rest of Sarah Palin’s family.
What’s funny is how leftists like yourself say that disabled children should be killed, but then claim to be for “human rights”.
SG: Well one is politically motivated and reprehensible but rational and therefore amenable,
As always, the Obama Party puppet admits that he supports bans on gay marriage and what he claims is hatred against gays when it helps the Obama Party politically.
So much for “human rights”.
DallasNorthFork: “… Not likely, given how you supported the namecalling and dehumanization of Trig Palin and the rest of Sarah Palin’s family.”
SG: Well even more theatrical there North,, however, my ridicule is Ole-Testament-righteous-ridicule, which I save for the willfully ignorant … It’s a ‘Valuez’ thing
Dallas: “… What’s funny is how leftists like yourself say that disabled children should be killed, but then claim to be for “human rights”.”
SG: Hmmm … Maybe you want to point out where I said that …
Snerd
SG: Well even more theatrical there North,, however, my ridicule is Ole-Testament-righteous-ridicule, which I save for the willfully ignoran
Except when it’s the Obama Party supporting that which you call “homophobic” elsewhere, at which point you support and endorse it.
As for killing disabled children, you support unlimited abortion, right? You believe that people should not receive medical care if they’re terminally ill and will never recover, right?
NorthStraw: “… As for killing disabled children, you support unlimited abortion, right? You believe that people should not receive medical care if they’re terminally ill and will never recover, right?”
SG: A question!? … Don’t questions show weakness because it shows you don’t know everything …? I thought only wimps asked questions, and real (R)z make statements? Or is that really just another North-Straw-Man statement …?
Snerd
The amount of vitriol and harassment Sarah Palin has endured following November as a losing prez or VP candidate is no doubt unprecedented in American history.
Uhm, someone doesn’t know much about the revolutionary period. Please read up on the history of John Adams vs. Jefferson vs. Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr vs Madison vs John Marshall. Then read up on the alien and sedition acts. Then read up on the Jacksonian period of politics, then read about some of the slander aimed at Abe Lincoln early in his career (though that wasn’t too bad). Hamilton had it the worse..
NDT said about me:
I don’t condemn those who attacked the Palin because I don’t care about those who say idiotic things about the Palins. The valid stuff stands on its own, the dumb stuff reveals itself as dumb. I mean really, Sullivan exhibits a terriblel whole in his psyche every time he brings up the Trig thing. It only makes him look bad, not Sarah Palin. I didn’t need anyone to point out how slanted the Gibson interview was. And if you would have read my blog during the election season, you would have seen I was one of the few here on GP who pointed out how that interview was edited to make her responses look even worse. I have a degree in video editing and those kind of dirty tricks are a no-no in my book, no matter who does it. That said, her performance was bad on it’s own accord.
On the legal stuff. As I said before, Palin doesn’t need my help against those legal inquiries, as she’s defended herself quite nicely on her own. My general rule of blogging about legal issues is that I am not in the jury box, and don’t know all the facts. I generally defer law stuff to thoughtfull lawyers like Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter.
And Letterman? You know, maybe if you didn’t go on the defensive everytime some said something idiotic about the Palins, maybe it wouldn’t get as much press.
“One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez,”
Yes, the joke was poor. But come on. He’s a comedian. “Oh no, a comedian make a bad joke about Bristol Palin!” Yes, the joke was about Bristol. Do you really believe that whoever writes jokes for any of the late night shows bothered to check on details of exactly who in the Palin family was going to be at the game? Come on, they’re comedy writers, most of whom just don’t work that hard. They just don’t care. They simlpy take the headlines and try to make them funny (and more often than not fail).
Here’s the typical headline:
“Sarah Palin hits New York City, joins Rudy Giuliani for Yankees game”
No mention of Willow.
Here’s the Huff Post. Again, no mention of Willow.
The only story that even mentions Willow during this period is found on Politico. And it doesn’t mention anything about the Palins going to a Yankees game. I’ll bet you twenty bucks the Letterman staff writers don’t read that newsblog anyway.
The joke only became about Willow after Rush and Hannity twisted the meaning of the joke from one about Palin’s obviously sexually active daughter to one about the 14 year old. There is absolutely NO HINT of rape in the joke as is. That was a Rush invention. The poor joke would have slid right on by had the conservative commentators stoked the fires (which is why I’m not a big fan of what conservative media has become). In fact Palin was making a good transition back to the semi-private life of a small state governor until Rush make this into a ratings bonanza by distorting the joke. He’s and his ilk are just as responsible for Sarah’s publicity problem as Letterman. Will someone who is outraged by the explainable Letterman error PLEASE explain how SNL did the “Todd Palin Has Insect With His Daughters” skit, yet somehow Palin (and most conservatives) not only ignored the outrageous content of that skit, but also appear on the show in person a few weeks later. I’ll tell you how. It slipped by Rush’s attention. Bet the Palins knew about it, and didn’t care. It’s Saturday Night Live. They do that sort of thing. This “controversial” Letterman joke outrage was completely manufactured, and conservatives seeking pity for Sarah, or in the case of conservative talk circuit seeking ratings, milked it for all it’s worth, at the expense of Sarah Palin.
She… Was…. Not…. Forced…. Out! She was not impeached. She decided to quit. And again, i ask, how is quitting the Governorship going to stop people from making fun of her and her family? By now being able to threatening to sue everybody? Did the Clintons curl up in disdain every time someone made fun of Hillary’s pant suits, or when people made fun of Chelsea’s looks?
V said:
Please, what a freaking myth. Where was this concern when Rush called Chelsea Clinton a dog, ugly, or pot head? And don’t say he didn’t say it. I’ve listened to his show since 94 and heard the comments first hand. The adoration the Kenedy kids got ruined it for everybody. That is the exception, not the rule. This kind of petty meanness is unfortunately part of the political process when you have a free press. It comes from both sides of the political fence. You’re old enough to recall Carter’s daughter being play in a not too flattering fashion by Lorraine Newman on SNL in the day.
So anyway, now the GOP has sunk to the level of playing the victim card. Great. Never thought I’d live to see the day.
This “controversial” Letterman joke outrage was completely manufactured
Right, because obviously, no one could ever realistically get upset when a 62 year old lecher is calling her daughter a whore on national television.
Where was this concern when Rush called Chelsea Clinton a dog…?
He did it one time, sixteen freakin’ years ago, was condemned for it, and apologized for it! And even if he did it, that doesn’t make it okay by any stretch.
OK, you hate Sarah Palin. That’s obvious. But when you hate her so much you’re defending attacks on her kids … you’ve got a serious problem. That is not a respectable position to be taking.
Has no one noticed that while most politicians retire rich after serving in jobs that pay little money but the Palin family is a half million or so dollars in debt from those spurious ethics complaints? This constant game of filing complaint after unfounded complaint, please note that all of them were investigated and she was cleared. Yet the Palin family had to foot the bill. No other state has these incredibly odd ethics laws. All others require some thing called evidence.
I’d quit my job if it was costing me over a hundred thousand dollars a year. Funny how that works, Obama gets rich, Dodd gets rich, Dems get rich and the Palins go broke. Meanwhile their children are attacked. And even after beating every one of those charges the people who made them go around saying “but there are ethics questions.” In three weeks the rules change.
Exactly, Peter. Sarah Palin was caught in a Catch-22. Leftist hag Linda Kellen Biegle can file frivolous ethics complaint after frivolous ethics complaint at little or no cost, and Sarah has to defend herself from each one at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. And any attempt to raise money to cover her legal defense just results in more ethics complaints. A vicious cycle.
I was going to say, there are legitimate criticisms of Sarah Palin, just as there were legitimate criticisms of Bush. But when you’re defending attacks on her kids, when you’re defending Trig Trutherism, and when you’re saying she’s “lawsuit happy” when she wants to defend herself… you’ve kind of crossed over into the same camp with the same people who referred to “the Bush Crime Family” and claim the Iraq War was done just to enrich Halliburton.
This is truly mind boggling.
While I personally believe that “gay conservative” is akin to a black man in favor of slavery, this entire thread troubles me. Something tells me that if a democrat decided to quit and abandon their voters and state, no one here would support the idea that the big bad media made them do it. I know that if any politician or leader I supported, cut and ran… they would lose all my respect and future support. The problem here is that uneducated voters worship people and not ideas. The same goes with people who worship Obama, even when he makes some seriously misguided steps. Falling in love with a person and forgiving their lack of intelligence and integrity is the past time of fools. That goes for both the left and the right.
The woman openly condones your status as a second class citizen and considers you a threat to the American family. Where the hell is your self respect? While my gay friends are dying in wars over seas, to fight for EVERYONES “freedoms”, this woman actively tries to remove them. The saddest part of all of this is that an irrational fear of “leftist” politics has allowed you to support her. There are no true liberals in congress or the senate, outside of Nadar. Obama and all those scary democrats are center right or middle ground politicians. The American definition of left is lacking and the rest of the modern world sees our terrifying liberals as centrist republicans. It is our “right wing” that is dangerously situated on one extreme end… not our left.
The woman was a massive failure on every level and was an active opponent of education and science. Her personal religious views washed over her political positions and she decided to hold them above the people she was sworn to serve. Her irrational hatred of higher education and this “liberal media” nonsense made her look like all Americans were simple minded and short sided. Our media is childish, petty and they love a train wreck. Sarah Palin made it a daily goal to say something ignorant, uneducated or hillbilly backwards. How long did we attack Clinton for his blow job? Left or Right, the media plays silly games and focuses on stupid people and stupid acts. Palin had both bases covered. The only way anyone logical could have felt pity for the treatment her family received in the media, would have been if she hadnt paraded them around like a shiny button proclaiming herself the queen of family values. If you are going to place your loved ones in the cross hairs, dont attempt to play the victim when people take shots. If you are going to complain about “gotcha” questions, make sure they are deeply complex issues, not a simple request of reading materials, supreme court cases or your personal view on the Bush Doctrine. (Something she knew nothing of)
If politicians can sleep with people of the same sex and ruin their marriages and STILL stay in office, Palin should have been fine. It was a cowardly move in the simple fact that she abandoned her post and her duty to the voters. There is no possible way she will ever be taken serious again, let alone become the president of anything outside the PTA. Yet again, we must cherish ideals, not people or the specter of “family values”.
As gay men, in a country that has historically oppressed you, I am ashamed that you have come to the defense of a woman with dangerously uneducated and bigoted views. I suppose some of you need to bury more friends who have killed themselves over the overwhelming feeling that god, not only doesnt love them, but wishes them eternal pain and suffering. There is nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative as a gay man, but socially conservative and a supporter of intolerance is unacceptable and embarrassing.
From Palin to Obama we have people falling over themselves to praise their political party, while demonizing the other. If we are to move on as a nation we must learn to uphold integrity and ideals and put aside this idol worship. This applies to the Obamanuts out there as well. There is nothing “shrewd or calculating” about supporting an incredibly offensive and bigoted legal briefing. When the President of the United States, a self confessed “fierce advocate” of gay rights, offends gays and lesbians with his ignorance and religious nonsense, we must all stand together and educate him. This same wisdom can be applied to the conservatives in this country which are historically much more anti gay than the so called American left.
Its odd to watch so many of you attack each others parties for being unintelligent, corrupt and anti gay, when neither party is advancing the rights of gays and lesbians in this country at the moment. ENDA, DADT, DOMA? No one has done squat. Both your parties failed.
As for the David Letterman comment… all I can say is develop a sense of humor, the rest of us have. Rush Limbaugh says more evil and poisonous things in one day than David Letterman does in a lifetime. You also have the market cornered on homophobic, intolerant, hate filled and uneducated radio hosts. I would suggest you drop the Letterman bit, you have nothing to stand on. As for the Palin’s becoming poor, that is arguably laughable. The woman is writing a book and would make more money a year doing speaking engagements than she could ever imagine as governor. Not only will they be fine, they will be richer than any of you here and all those children will be able to choose who they marry and they wont ever worry about being beaten up, because “jesus hates them.”
To whoever said that attacking the children of a politician is a core threat to our Democracy, well… they need to pack up and leave the country tonight. To say such an idiotic, emotionally backwards and historically offensive comment is indicative of a reactionary individual. Someone who fights logic with passion and reason with hollow statements. For clarification sake, the actual dangerous threats to the core of our democracy is the removal of freedoms and the destruction of the constitution. Something that Bush openly did for 8 years on a daily basis, but I am sure you said nothing then. Her children will be fine, but the constitution of this country will need years to repair its promises and reputation. Your statement is absolutely the bottom of the barrel, in terms of human thought.
I am one of those scary liberal, elitist, college educated, well traveled socialists you have all become terrified of. I say this with all honesty… there are people in this world far more deserving of your praise than Bible Spice and I can promise you that, not only would they welcome you in their home, they would see you as equals. Something very few GOP’ers or the Palins would do.
Dont let them trick you They dont give a crap about you and they never will.
Obama let slip that he was “constrained” by the Constitution. Well, Palin was equally constrained by being the “first citizen” of Alaska. She will soon by free to speak her piece without officially dragging the state into it.
Sure she is taking her family into account. But she has plenty of elbow room for the ime being. Until she declares her political intentions, she is not a justifiable target by the Palin Derangement Syndrome media. (Not that they will lay off.) Their continued attacks will only serve to elevate the Palin Admiration Syndrome.
I am particularly amused by those who criticize her for not having a full blown press conference on a slow news day with a jackal feeding frenzy question and answer marathon. Why should she? She moved Michael Jackson off the front page the way she handled her “going private” announcement.
Ed Rollins said we saw a rising star crash to earth. That is the same Ed Rollins who joined the Perot team and found himself discredited and sitting on his thumbs. If I were Sarah Palin, I would stay away from Rollins, Luntz and all of the other super nova know nothings.
According to science, the bumble bee is not built to fly. Sometimes, gut instinct is your best guide.
I believe she left for both reason although I am not sure POTUS is the political one. I do believe she wants and needs more time with her family and children. The rabid attacks that they have witnessed on themselves and their mother has to be traumatic. From what I have read, she has very, very strong kids but I do not believe that any Americans could be prepared for what has transpired let alone a child.
I believe she still has a passion for conservative politics and that for what part of her decision was political it wasn’t to run for POTUS. I don’t think she has ruled that out but I believe her focus is on 2010 and helping conservative (not necessarily GOP) candidates elected. I think she wants to travel, speak, meet with Americans and spread the conservative message. If conservatives retake the house and senate in 2010 then I think she might entertain a POTUS run but maybe not. She might really find that she can make a very big difference sitting at kitchen tables and meeting communities. It seems to be Washington that is claiming she wants a POTUS run in 2012. She might have at one point but maybe she sees her influence in a different direction.
I for one would love to see Michael Steele make her a co-chair of the RNC and that the two team up to retake America for conservative ideals. The two of them would pretty much represent moderate and conservative/libertarian republicans so that all are included.
Justice, I have seen what you and your fellow liberal puppets say to gay people like myself who disagree with you politically.
Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.
In short, if you are so upset about gay people committing suicide, you shouldn’t be encouraging it yourself. But you’re not. You’re simply using suicide as a reason to attack religious people and don’t really care if a gay person whose politics you don’t like offs themselves.
Sort of like how you wish death on the children of conservative gays.
Liberals like gays as long as gays serve as their obedient puppets. When gays don’t, liberals tell gays to commit suicide and wish death and destruction on their families — not unlike liberals have done to Sarah Palin, who is also a nonconforming minority in the eyes of liberals.
I personally believe that “gay conservative” is akin to a black man in favor of slavery
When a long-winded response starts out with a musty cliche like that, you know there will be nothing worth reading in the remaining paragraphs.
It’s amusing when someone demonstrates (at great length) that their entire worldview is made up of nothing but a small collection of left-wing cliches, but it becomes hilarious when they cap off their tiresome reiteration of cliches by bragging about educated and worldly they are.
OK, you hate Sarah Palin. That’s obvious.
Hate Palin????? So, since Michale Barone and I share the same criticism of the Alaskan governor, that quitting does not help her chances for a 2012 run, I guess he must hate her too. I don’t think she has enough experience to be President of the United States. Uh oh, there I go hating again. Come on V. Come on NDT. That’s not hate. That’s called an assessment. It was the same opinion I had of Obama too.
Most of my previous post was about the reactions by some conservatives to the liberal swipes taken at Palin and the family, and criticism of conservatives who are hyperventilating and wallowing in the use of the victim card. The post was mostly an attack on the attempt to make Palin into a Joan of Arc character.
Last word I’ll give on the joke. If it was so offensive to insinuate that Bristol is a whore, then why twist the joke into one about the younger daughter Willow. It’s a bait and switch pulled by Rush and Co. because the former just wasn’t offensive enough. And I’ll ask again, why did the same conservatives who got sooooooo upset about Lettermans throw-away joke not throw a hissy when SNL did the way way over the line skit about Todd porking the Girls? Are you going to tell me that seven minute long skit about the husband having incest with the children is some how less offensive than Letterman’s ten second blurb? Anyone? Does anyone here really think the Palins didn’t get word that this occurred? It’s not like it wasn’t all over the internet the next day. Why did the Palins not say boo? Why did the Palins appear on SNL a few weeks later????? Because maybe, just maybe, they recognized that comedy can’t be taken too seriously. The Palins only complained ATFER Rush made an issue of the Letterman swipe.
I will defend to the death (OK, maybe not to the death) the right of any talk show host or supposed comedian, from David Letterman to Rush Limbaugh, from Whoopie Golberg to Glenn Beck to SNL, the right to tell stupid, mean and offensive jokes, and fight against the pressure of censorship and political correctness on both sides of the isle.
But will you fight to the death for someone else’s right to say “that joke was out of line and inappropriate?” Freedom of speech doesn’t just belong to artists and pundits, you know?
And people said it was about Willow because, duh, Willow was the daughter she took to the game. And Letterman’s excuse that he was calling the other daughter a whore only makes it less bad, it doesn’t excuse it entirely.
I never saw the SNL sketch. So, I’m not commenting on it.
Finally, saying she shouldn’t have resigned in and of itself is not hateful. It’s saying it’s all right for others to attack her family that’s hateful.
And people said it was about Willow because, duh, Willow was the daughter she took to the game.
Something the writers of the joke probably didn’t and wouldn’t have know when they wrote the joke since it was not common knowledge until ATFER the joke backfired. Usually, the simplest, least complicated answers are the corect ones (modified Occams razor).
And Letterman’s excuse that he was calling the other daughter a whore only makes it less bad, it doesn’t excuse it entirely.
We agree here. It was in poor taste. But most jokes are. Google Jeff Foxworthy’s opinion on this to put this episode into perspective.
I have to go work now.
But will you fight to the death for someone else’s right to say “that joke was out of line and inappropriate?” Freedom of speech doesn’t just belong to artists and pundits, you know?
Absolutely. But it’s not those individuals who are on trial here, it’s those who are making the stupid crude jokes and commentaries.
I don’t buy that the Willow/Bristol mix-up was an honest snafu; I’ve met too many liberals to believe their excuse that they only consider the joke funny if it’s about the 18 year-old Bristol rather than the 14 year-old Willow. Trailer trash get started young, don’tcha know? I’m actually surprised the joke didn’t include the name ‘Piper’.
Isn’t it amazing how you can say ANYTHING and claim later that you were “joking” — and then it somehow makes it right?
Obama raped his daughter Malia at 4 AM this morning — but wait, I forgot, you can’t rape the willing. Just joking. Obviously if you’re offended, you have no sense of humor.
Isn’t it amazing how you can say ANYTHING and claim later that you were “joking” — and then it somehow makes it right?
So… are you saying that the top ten list, something Lettermans been doing since, oh, 1986 or so, aren’t jokes?
considering my opinion of Letterman [i]before[/i] his ‘rape the 14 year old’ comment, I didn’t know anyone still thought he was a comedian.
One speculation I read was that he made the ‘joke’ to blunt Conan taking over the tonight show.
“It’s amusing when someone demonstrates (at great length) that their entire worldview is made up of nothing but a small collection of left-wing cliches”
Which were used to counter the small collection of right-wing cliches that make up the entire worldview of the majority who comment here.
So… are you saying that the top ten list, something Lettermans been doing since, oh, 1986 or so, aren’t jokes?
I’m kind of old school in that I expect “jokes” to be “teh funny.” But I guess Andy Kaufman changed that outdated concept of “humor.”
OK V. I stand corrected. Should have written: “…intended to be jokes.”
V the K, let me go a bit older.
“If you have to use obscenity to be funny, you’re not funny” – attributed to Groucho Marx by his daughter.
North Dallas Thirty.
I am unsure of how posting links to other peoples sites, somehow constitutes my own opinion. How does that have anything to do with my point of view? If your argument is that other liberals think certain things, so I must as well… then I guess you are admitting you dont think for yourself but follow what all conservatives think. If that is the case and you simply follow conservative talking points, so be it. I would ask that you not over simplify my intelligence by stating how simple yours is. I have led a rich and full life, full of life changing experiences. To assume because I am more liberal than conservative that you can ascribe another mans views as my own is poor logic and the oddest discussion tactic I have ever seen.
You can attack my character as much as you please, but you did not address anything I said or answer any of the questions I asked. If your response to my comment is to call me names and stick your tongue out, I would ask that you not waste my time. As a man who has worked with the Trevor Project and various other groups to stop and prevent suicide by gays and lesbians, I am unsure as to what your comment meant. If you are unable to see that religion is often the cause of so much pain for these kids, I can only assume you have never met a suicidal teenager. To state that my comment was an attack on religion in any way is reactionary and shows you either did not read or did not understand my post. Either way, you do not know my personal religious views, so I would ask we stay on topic. You will forgive me if that sounds like i am calling you ineffectual and unable to get your point across.
It appears my complicated views on the world can not be summed up in Twitter sized responses or one sentence snarky comments. I was unaware that the readers of this blog where unable to engage in lengthy discussion on topics in which they claimed to have so much passion. If your attention span or desire to read my comments is lacking, I would suggest not bothering to comment on how long you felt it was. If you are not going to read it, you dont have a logical stance on which to criticize it. This is a commonly understood concept when adults discuss adult topics. Short of writing this response in crayon, I am unsure of what to do for you.
I dont know why you assumed I was like all liberals because I stated that Sarah Palin was a poor and ineffectual leader. I stated several times that I felt Obama and many Democrats where also incompetent and useless. I am sorry that I do not agree with everything you cherish, but to label everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal is silly. Its a poor way to shut down a conversation when you have nothing to say. Yet again, if all we can do is generalize all people by these silly terms, you are wasting my time. You are more than within your right to idolize this simple woman, but do so with a logical response.
As for your remarks V, you didnt state anything to refute my point, you simply insulted me. Please answer some of the questions I asked, as I am curious as to how your mind works. Feel free to call me all the names you wish, but do so while not wasting my time and getting to the point. I was never aware that being well educated was so horrible an offense and often find that when someone attacks the higher education of another, its an attempt to cover up for the fact they have very little intellectual curiosity and even less education of their own. Although it was cool to make fun of the smart kids in highschool, in the real world its the smart kids that employ you and your children. Acting like a child and pretending its hilarious that I am smarter than you is really counter productive.
I would think that my world travels and high level of education has afforded me the right to discuss world views at length, because I have experienced them. I would also say that paltry education and minimal world travel afford you less credibility in your arguments. But if we are going to end this with “You are stupid, because you are so smart”…. well thats your right.
I think its also safe to that my slavery/conservative joke was very accurate, considering you are all falling at the feet of a woman who wishes to remove your rights and thinks you to be perverts. To be so misguided that you would think a logical man capable of supporting their own oppression is insulting to those fighting against the idols you are placing on the alter. The truth is that most conservatives dont want you around their families and even less want you in their party. Aligning yourself with people opposed to your god given rights is the most self destructive thing I can imagine.
After reading the comments on this page I am finding nothing but silly insults and people dodging very serious and pertinent questions. When all you can see is left vs right, you sound just as loony as the leftist nut jobs on the other side. If your answer to every argument is “liberal this and left wing that” you are wasting everyones time. This is no more apparent than by your dismissal of my comment under the inane statement that all liberals are alike. Life is in the nuances and shades of grey, to be blindly partisan on any issue is the sign of a wasted mind. As someone who stated several times his dislike of both the left and right, your attempt to box me in is baffling.
Its not about liberals vs conservatives, its about common sense. There is nothing more senseless than supporting a woman who denies everything you deserve as a human being. This is also coming from a man who finds Obama to often be equally ineffectual and overly pragmaticl. I know an irrational fear of educated men has compelled you to hate the man, but why support a woman who is disgusted by you?
No more games, answer my question or admit you have no logical stance.
Feel free to respond in length, I am a big boy and can handle large paragraphs.