Yesterday, Governor Palin (aka Governor Liar) abruptly resigned.
Many speculate it is because she wants to focus on campaigning for President. In her rambling resignation speech, she stated she wanted to focus on "helping kids outside of the Governor's office."
Perhaps - on both accounts, but Palin's penchant for dishonesty (I read all of em', Todd was trying to register to be an Independent, You can see Russia from Alaska, We had to concern ourselves with Russia as Governor), leaves me thinking the latter comment from someone who showed little regard for education both as a student and as Governor is pretty unlikely. I'm also dubious of the former, that she's resigning to focus on the Presidential race - however, let's take her at her word and talk about that for a moment.
First, she's got more name recognition than any other probable candidate, so she hardly needs to take time to shake hands in Montpellier or Concord. Second, dozens of Governors have run for President while still discharging their duties as Governor. Ms. Palin was an absentee Governor last fall while campaigning for the McCain-Palin ticket, drawing complaints from those within her state, but she seemed to be able to at least function.
Now, though, it's too much time? Well, if true, it's a damning embarrassment for her. She is simply walking away from the position to which 'the people elected her to', which she claims is such a profound honor. Apparently it is so profound she'll happily leave it in mid-term, abrogating her responsibility to her state and it's citizens, during a time of national economic crisis.
I suspect that is more the truth, that Ms. Palin, ever the political schemer and opportunist, doesn't like the hard work of dealing with a state which is facing economic trouble for the first time in decades, where her actions are roundly criticized and she is becoming increasing unpopular and noted for her strong connection to business. I suspect that her desire to 'grab the brass ring' of speaking engagements, working for corporate America as a propagandist, etc.. seems a LOT more appealing than helping Alaska, in the job she was SUPPOSED to do, deal with falling tax revenues and higher public need.
In the end, one thing only is true, she's walking away from a job when the job needs her most (if she's actually competent). She's abandoning her constituents and her state because of her ambitious desire for stardom. That is not the province of Presidential candidates, but is the conduct of narcissistic starlets - those on the right have said she is reminiscent of Indira Ghandi or Margaret Thatcher - I'd say it's Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton.
As I commented on the story over at PoliticusUSA, I think that Palin leaving is not about her concern for Alaska and her ability to perform the office of governor, it is more likely that the office of governor no longer serves her.
ReplyDeleteI would find her concerns about fulfilling the demands of the governor's office more believable if she hadn't pretty well neglected those duties to run for Vice President, and regularly to court the attention of the national stage since the 2008 election, leaving Alkaskans to fend for themselves governmentally speaking.
To be fair, Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain didn't exactly spend a lot of their time either fulfilling the demands of their elective offices. At issue is the hypocricy of claiming how much one cares about the elected office you have after you DON'T win another elective office.
I'm betting that she makes a run for the senate in the near future, as a setting up position to run again for President, but in 2016, not 2012.
Those negative things said, the treatment of her children, particularly her youngest, in the media has been offensive in the extreme. In that regard, she has my sincere and deepest sympathies. Other candidates have had greater respect given to their children, particularly minor children than Palin has. Palin was running for political office; not her children.
I listened to her confusing, rambling speech. If she intends to be on the lecture circuit, she needs to stick to prepared remarks, written by someone else, or she will quickly find herself out of a job. No one would pay her for a performance like she gave yesterday. The name Sarah Palin only goes so far, even with the rather ignorant neo-con right.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I find her dishonesty reprehensible, unfortunately my cynicism is such that I've come to expect dishonesty from a politician. Barak Obama has not been completely up front with the American people, and I, like many who voted for him, am profoundly disappointed by a number of the positions he took after inauguration. There is an old saying, which is regrettably true: "How do you know when a politician is lying?" answer: When his/her lips are moving.
Perhaps Sarah Palin simply wishes to devote time to her family. If so, its a laudable goal. However, she was elected to do a job, which was to serve as Governor of Alaska. I am surprised she did not serve out her term and then choose not to run for re-election. By abandoning the people of her state, she has shown that she is utterly unqualified for any further elective office, including that of dog-catcher.
I think its interesting that an attorney representing the Palins stated on Sunday (or perhaps it was Saturday) that they would bring defamation actions against those who speculated that she resigned in the face of ethics complaints and to hide wrong-doing.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this attorney probably just opened a can of worms that he would have rather closed, especially since now that will just add fuel to the fire. Given Palin's tendency to try to manipulate the truth, however, should we put anything past her?
He's just threatening against Libel, which any competent author can avoid easily. There're not likely to file a damned thing, but it makes it appear as if she's somehow being persecuted unfairly, when frankly, she's not. Blogs are not the province of professional journalists, nor are they expected to be. Frankly, blogs are even considered private consumption information, so I suspect he'd have a helluva time proving damages.
ReplyDeletesorry, that should have been "They're", blah.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteNonsense, and let's not make aggrandizing, overly exagerative statements, ok? It makes you sound like an extremist. Neo-Cons hardly need help doing that I think.
Mostly we found Palin to be a source of comedy, and what's even better, we found her to be a daffy gadfly who validated all of the suspicions against her. She was callow, crass, shallow and vindictive. She quit her constituents and probably wrecked her career.
In short, she was a wonderful lightning rod/example we could use to make the whole movement look stupid for backing her. Much like the comments of many in the blog-o'-sphere, she worked as a perfect negative force, driving many millions away from an idea-poor, elitist party.
So, actually K, we're sorry to see her go. I think her career is done. I suppose only time will tell the difference.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteI really couldn't care a rat's hind quarters whether Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska or not. However, Ms. Palin chose to thrust herself into the limelight when she accepted the vice presidential nomination, and she has continued to keep herself in the limelight ever since. She could have laid low and kept out of it, but she didn't. I refuse to speculate on her motives.
Now - I'm not especially happy to see her leave elected office, because she is abandoning the people of Alaska who elected her as their Governor. Its possible that if there were a referendum today that she would be beaten, but the fact is, she was hired by the people to do a job, and she is quitting approximately half-way through the job, for no real reason. She's doing a disservice to the voters who elected her, regardless of her and their political persuasion.
I haven't any clue what Palin's approval numbers are, and you can dredge up almost any number you want and with the right amount of spin, make it stick. I suppose, for instance, if you polled conservative republicans prior to her resigning, she would have had pretty high numbers. I also suppose (but again I'm guessing) that if you had polled Alaskans in general, they would have been fairly low. She's neglected the duties of her office, she is under a variety of ethics investigations, and now she resigns.
I don't love to hate anyone. Hate is a term conservatives use for people that disagree with them.
K-rod, you accused Penigma (and presumably me) of deleting your posts because they disappeared. I didn't see them waiting to be moderated; I assume from that for some reason, they took longer than usual to appear.
ReplyDeleteAs to Palin as governor, she was elected apparently fairly, and prior to being nominated for Vice President, seemed to be doing well in elected office. I am cynical about all politicians - and that includes Obama on many counts. I do have a lot of sympathy for Palin for how the media treated her kids, which I thought was very objectionable - particularly the ones under legal age.
I do not understand why she has resigned. I don't think she is ready for national office, and I do think she would have been in a stronger position for whatever she chose to do next had she not resigned - another governor run, or senate, or ? in 2012.
Being cynical, I do not believe for a moment that she simply up and resigned, without something else firmly in her grasp that she sees as being better than being governor. THAT seems to me to be treating her constituency poorly, and taking her job too lightly.
I passed your last two comments, not Penigma. I will support his position completely; keep it clean, keep it reasonably civil, and on topic. Within those criteria, your views are every bit as welcome here as anyone else, no matter how much you may disagree with others. Cross the line - you're done.
I see that the poster boy for obsessive-compulsive anger management therapy is back. The more things change....
ReplyDeleteK-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"DG, your accusations are baseless."
If you are correct, and I'm wrong K-rod, I will make a point of personally apologizing. Rather than accusations, I suppose absent any other information, it's really more speculation.
"As for Palin, why do the liberals get so darned foaming at the mouth excited when ever they hear her name?"
I don't. I find her voice particularly grating, her expressions inane, and her presentations rather boring, actually. She does not engage me.
"Palin certainly had high approval numbers from Alaskans. "
Had, past tense, is the significant part of that statement. I agree with you that she HAD high numbers at one point, prior to the veep nomination. But her approval rating seems to be on a very long, very steady decline.
"Or we could go with the knee jerk liberal reaction and attack her!!! *insert Dean scream*"
I don't think I quite follow this thought. For one thing, there is a difference between thoughtful criticism and attacking someone. Secondly, what do you consider to constitute knee-jerk? Leaving office prematurely, without clear reason, does seem to be a reasonable occasion for comment. Is that any more knee-jerk than your reactions against Obama, or some others? I'd much rather both sides of politics got away from knee-jerk reactions, and were more genuine with their opponents. What is a "dean" scream? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all...
Please define what you mean by liberal fascism, K-rod.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't answered my questions, posted in the comment directly above your most recent.
I'd also be interested in your response to my newest addition here; scroll up and take a look. It also addresses the Palin resignation.
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"I am not the world's number one expert.
Try google; it is a fine resource to help you with many questions.
There is a book you can read about Liberal Fascism; becareful, it might be a huge eye opener."
I am not afraid of ideas K-rod; concepts and observations in books don't alarm me. Thank you for the suggested reading, but that answer begs the question. I very clearly, and intentionally inquired what YOU MEAN when you use the term Liberal Fascism. Please provide NOT a text/reference book definition, but YOUR OWN. What interests me is what YOU mean using the word.
DG -
ReplyDeleteK-Rod will point you to screed from the likes of Free Press, Sun Yung Moon, and other similarly organized psuedo-press and/or hate-sites which are going to try to use revisionism to claim that right wing extremism aka Fascism, is in fact LEFT wing extremism - whcih is of course, utter, total nonsenes.
Fascism is, by definition, totalitarianism, liberalism is the liberalizing of mores, of policies and laws, it is in fact, by definition making liberty easier not the other way around. Fascism has other hallmarks too, such as, attacking one racial or social class, restricting labor, reducing middle-class wealth and liberties, hyper nationalism, and hyper-militarism, which K-Rod (and the like) rather conveniently ignore. They MEAN totalitarians, but they are interested in also creating confusion about the conduct of the likes of Hitler, Mousolini and Tojo - wanting to claim somehow that they were peers in terms of social contract and conduct with Stalin and Mao.
The funny/ironic part is that Stalin, Mao and Hitler ALL understood they were essentially at polar opposites. Stalin used slave labor in GOVERNMENT controlled Gulags, Hitler provided slave labor to corporations like Krupp and IG Farbin which profited immensely. Certainly Albert Speer directed production in the Third Reich from 1943 on, but ONLY because Germany was losing the war. Prior to that, essentially the compact between The Reich and corporations was laissez-faire AND bust unions (and oh by the way, jail unionist, including executing 350,000 unionists, social democrats, and communists).
K-Rod, I hope you can see you are FAR FAR FAR from an expert on this subject - whereas others, people with vast experience and education ARE. The attempts by lunatic websites and authors to redefine Fascims is political in nature, not factual. It does NOT align with the conduct of Fascism - as such, as I posted in the other thread, either explain your meaning, or cease with using this term - I find it HIGHLY offensive. If you want civil discourse, fine, but then you must behave civily. Using terms which would offend to their core many Americans who fought in WWII - I will not allow to continue, no ifs, no ands, no buts. Either explain your intent, or cease. That's the choice.
DG's question is better put, K-Rod, explain what YOU mean, or don't say it. I don't need to read screed. I'm also fairly literate in history, it's not likely anything from a highly partisan resource LEFT OR RIGHT is going to 'open' anyone's eyes.
ReplyDeleteI've read Rush Limbaughs book, Sean Hannity's book(s), a book by some doofus who worked for Clinton but hated him - they were all simplistic nonsense.
So rather than suffer insufferable stupidity, please explain what you mean.
K-rod wrote:
ReplyDelete"Would banning certain words and certain books be considered a Liberal Fascist tactic?"
If you are referring to this site, the term Liberal Fascist has been appearing pretty frequently; the opposite of being banned.
You were asked to explain and clarify your usage of it. NOT the same as being banned at all K-rod.
I must be having a problem with being caught up on posts as well. I've been trying to hold up my end of sharing administration duties, with clearing posts, and I'm still getting a little lost... here and there.
Speaking of the meaning of words, K-rod, you might enjoy reading one of my earlier posts here, a little further back "They're Only Words". Something you wrote over on SitD was my inspiration for the title.
I should really go back and add a K-rod dedication....
K-Rod,
ReplyDeletePick a thread. I'm growing more than weary of bouncing between them answering the same, inane commentary.
You want to use this thread, fine, the other, fine, but pick, please.
"Would banning certain words...blah balh.. liberal fascism..blah"
No K-Rod, it constitutes a reasonable request that you cease with using a term I find pejorative. This is my website (along with DG at this point), and these are the rules. It's private, you can speak your mind all you like on street corners, but your choice of words here is something I have some right to constrain. Further, let's say you use the word N---er, would you say I'm a 'fascist' if I said, cut it out? How about using profanity?
The point is LOTS of folks find certain things very offensive, only cretins continue using them once they've been asked to stop. Your use here (in my opinion) constitutes a desire by you to direct this debate into nonsense so that you don't have to address the real points, and further, so that you can continue with a BS premise - namely that ANY level of control constitutes LIBERAL FASCISM!@!!AHGAHGHAGHAGHGH!!!.
What malarkey. Rules happen, these are hardly onerus. Your definition of the term was weak, it was example based rather than a definition, and I'm still at the point of saying you haven't actually added anything to your first use. Either define what you mean, or move on. Nuff said. Either you learn some decorum, substantiate your position, or move on. WE don't need any more replies justifying a non-answer.
Oh K, Wiki sites are a. usually only sparsely regulated, and b. often full of BS.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you've brought up many topics, many of which have nothing to do with Wiki- you asked me to read a book, I gave you my opinion, that hate sites, BS books from abjectly ignorant authors, etc.. aren't worth the powder to blow them up. If you want to misunderstand (wilfully) and assume I'm EXLUSIVELY directing my comments to be about Wiki, I guess.. but that hardly moves the ball forward does it?
Frankly, you are getting FAR more attention and time here than your comments to date deserve. Both DG and I are showing enormous restraint (DG more than I, but still..) - you either need to put some thought behind your comments, or learn some tact, or preferably both - when you comment further.
Failing that, I for one have wasted enough words arguing drivel (liberal fascism) and stupidity (OBAMA's BANKRUPTING US AGHGHGH!!!! - pay attention or I'm offended AGHGHGHTHTHGHGH!!). Enough already - if you don't like my 'quips' or lack of taking Obama's deficit seriously - and don't 'take kindly' to them, how do you feel someone who's Grandfather fought in WWI, who's uncle fought in WWII, who's father fought in the Korean War - all of them opposed to totalitarianism, all of whom did so with the best of intentions, how do you suppose that goes over?
Consider it before you comment again. I'm beyond needing to waste more words on idiocy.
So K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteNow that you've been educated in what TRUE fascism is, are you ready to apologize for misusing it?
Just a question - and no, I don't consider a self-serving Wiki entry to be anything other than representational of some revisionist propoganda - and if you like, hate speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
Jonah Goldberg works for the National Review - he is the genesis of this 'term' -- and candidly is clearly nothing other than a right-wing revisionist.
It is time for you to correctly use the word, or move on.