dianahsieh Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Sarah Palin's announcement of her resignation as Alaska's governor was a bit of a shocker. John Hawkins of Right Wing News proposed five possible reasons for the move: 1) She may intend to run for President in 2012 and feels like it's to her advantage to resign now. It will mean no more phony ethics complaints. She'll be able to raise money and campaign for Republican candidates without having it used against her as governor as well. On the downside, it would hurt her in her weakest area: experience. Some people may perceive it as being flaky and emotional as well, which is something a female politician needs to work especially hard to avoid. 2) There may be some big scandal that's about to come down the pike. That's a pretty standard reason for resignations of this sort. What it would be, I have no idea at this point. 3) She, or perhaps Todd, could have a big health issue. 4) Maybe the Left finally wore her down and she just decided politics wasn't worth it anymore. I've seen it happen to other conservative women who've endured far less abuse than Sarah Palin and her family have so far. Indeed, it's part of the Left's strategy with conservative women. They try to make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal, and so vicious that conservative women just quit. ... 5) She could be pregnant again. Option #1 is not credible: Sarah Palin has ended her political career with this resignation. (Thank goodness!) Option #4 isn't so likely either at this late date, not without some additional pressure. So I'm betting on Options #2, #3, or #5. My money is on #5. Or perhaps another of her children is in some kind of un-Christian trouble. If Palin herself is pregnant, my only comment is somewhat general: career women really ought to figure out how to use birth control. Cross-posted from Metablog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Good riddance to bad rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Good riddance to bad rubbish. Agreed, this post by Kimberly Wingfield sums up the philosophy of Palin and co. And for comic relief, see my link in the comments to Jon Stewart's brilliant send up of her schizophrenic "defense" of freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Her (anti-)philosophy is one thing, but you've just listed five speculative reasons why she resigned, then concluded that she should learn to use birth control. This is a pretty clumsy and sophomoric analysis. Additionally, the notion that career women can't or shouldn't be a mother is absurd and sexist. Edited July 6, 2009 by 2046 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I know I will very likely regret it, but I have to ask: why so much hostility towards Palin? She's no worse than 99% of all other politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I know I will very likely regret it, but I have to ask: why so much hostility towards Palin? She's no worse than 99% of all other politicians. Because she's so unbelievably stupid it's embarassing, and if we had elected McCain it would have put us one heartbeat from having Caribou Barbie as president. Specifically she's not only ignorant but she wears her ignorance like a badge and plays it off as a good thing which it is in certain backwards redneck circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Because she's so unbelievably stupid it's embarassing, and if we had elected McCain it would have put us one heartbeat from having Caribou Barbie as president. Specifically she's not only ignorant but she wears her ignorance like a badge and plays it off as a good thing which it is in certain backwards redneck circles. She is highly intelligent. Her problem is she is not well read and she has a bad philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 She is highly intelligent. Her problem is she is not well read and she has a bad philosophy. On what do you base your judgment? I'm curious. I would agree that some of her "down-home-ness" is probably a front that she puts on but from every appearance and television spot I've seen she does not exactly come off as a genius. I don't think you have to be well-read to have a basic mastery of your native language and string a sentence together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Because she's so unbelievably stupid it's embarassing, and if we had elected McCain it would have put us one heartbeat from having Caribou Barbie as president. Specifically she's not only ignorant but she wears her ignorance like a badge and plays it off as a good thing which it is in certain backwards redneck circles. Well, stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing. Either way, Palin doesn't seem either particularly stupid or ignorant, no more so than the average politico. Can you cite some examples? Other than "I can see Russia from my house" of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) On what do you base your judgment? I'm curious. I would agree that some of her "down-home-ness" is probably a front that she puts on but from every appearance and television spot I've seen she does not exactly come off as a genius. I don't think you have to be well-read to have a basic mastery of your native language and string a sentence together. She has been caught in some real contradictions, for example over global warming, where it was clear she had not thought things through fully. Being tied to John McCain didn't help her, because McCain is the ultimate pragmatist, while she is a full fledged conservative. This was truly an irreconcilable combination, and I think tied Palin in knots at times. But, she can deliver great speeches. I think better than Obama, despite his reputation. She is also a very good debater, which means she's quick on her feet. Some of her speaking habits aren’t the best, I’ll grant you. But, again, her big problem is that she is not well read. This is a huge negative, because that is something she can control and it is her obligation to be well educated on economics, history, etc. Someone who is serious about politics in America should certainly have an appetite for that sort of reading. Edited July 7, 2009 by Thales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Well, stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing. Either way, Palin doesn't seem either particularly stupid or ignorant, no more so than the average politico. Can you cite some examples? Other than "I can see Russia from my house" of course. Wasn't it Tina Fey that said that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Because she's so unbelievably stupid it's embarassing, and if we had elected McCain it would have put us one heartbeat from having Caribou Barbie as president. Specifically she's not only ignorant but she wears her ignorance like a badge and plays it off as a good thing which it is in certain backwards redneck circles. Pick stupid over evil. Republicans are stupid, democrats are evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Yeah Tina Fey said the seeing Alaska thing. I do not think she is great or anything but the media crucified her to get Obama elected. I have seldom seen so much ignorance as among people who dislike Palin. So many perpetrated lies that few questioned; it was like the hate against Bush all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Wasn't it Tina Fey that said that? Yes, that's why I said "of course" as in "of course that doesn't count." But I am surprised how many people believe Palin said it seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Uh...Palin really did say that her foreign policy experience was the fact that she lived so close to Russia. She also didn't know what NAFTA was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 She also messed up greatly on the "Bush Doctrine" question. As a Conservative, she should have known and agreed with the idea that if a country harbors terrorists and encourage them that you have become an enemy of the United States. Unfortunately, Bush didn't really follow through with this good policy announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Pick stupid over evil. Republicans are stupid, democrats are evil. The most evil politician of my lifetime is probably Dick Cheney, so your analogy doesn't hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 The most evil politician of my lifetime is probably Dick Cheney, so your analogy doesn't hold. No, that would be Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 She also messed up greatly on the "Bush Doctrine" question. As a Conservative, she should have known and agreed with the idea that if a country harbors terrorists and encourage them that you have become an enemy of the United States. Unfortunately, Bush didn't really follow through with this good policy announcement. How did she "mess up" the question? The answer that you just described ["From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."] is not even what Gibson said it was [anticipatory preemptive war], nor is it what the guy [Krauthammer] who first used the term says it is ["The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism"], nor is it what Bush himself says it is [fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.] I saw it as a positive thing that she didn't "pretend to know" what this varying load of crap some media and intellectuals call "the Bush Doctrine" is. She should have only one doctrine when it comes to self-defense and it shouldn't have anything necessarily to do with George Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 How did she "mess up" the question? The answer that you just described ["From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."] is not even what Gibson said it was I think she skirted or possibly evaded the meaning of the Bush Doctrine, whereas she had the opportunity to explain it and to say whether she agreed with it or not. I certainly think that the United States ought to consider any regime that harbors or encourages terrorism against the United States to be our enemy. That doesn't necessarily mean regime change, it just means that we have declared our right to self-defense and will follow the terrorists to wherever they are and destroy them. Of course, outright war with those nations doing that -- especially Iran -- should have been the actual policy, and there is no moral need to rebuild those countries after they are destroyed as safe harbors for our enemies. Bush royally screwed up by not being consistent with his own stated policies with regards to the Bush Doctrine. And the Islamic Fundamentalists know that, which is why they continue -- that is, they know that the United States is only going to make a half-assed effort to correct the problem, as in hunting them down like the dogs they are instead of taking over their territory and establishing a no-Islamic Theocracy zone. As to why he did not take this approach; I think it is because he doesn't want to send the message that religious ruling regimes are anti-American, because he doesn't see a conflict between religion and the American way of life. And he did establish a partial theocracy in Iraq by letting Islamic religious leaders be part of that government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Uh...Palin really did say that her foreign policy experience was the fact that she lived so close to Russia. That would be fair, unless she had to deal with Russian officials from time to time. She also didn't know what NAFTA was. She dind't know there's a "free trade" agreement involving the US, Mexico and Canada, or she didn't know what it's called, or she dind't know all the details about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I loathe the idea of saying anything that seems to support Palin, but there is no objective evidence that she did not know what NAFTA is. The closest you can come is an allegation by an unnamed source in the McCain campaign (reported by a Fox reporter who voiced some concerned about her "knowledgeability", the stupid illiterate jerk) that she didn't know what countries are signatories to the agreement. These sorts of "facts" ought to be checked first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Did you hear about how her attorneys are now threatening to sue news organizations for defamation? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24521.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 These sorts of "facts" ought to be checked first. Fact checking? From the MSM? You expect too much, Sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Did you hear about how her attorneys are now threatening to sue news organizations for defamation? What's wrong with that? I didn't follow the link (got a 404), but I assume it's about this report circulating that Palin's being investigated by the FBI. THe FBI said they're not investigating her. To keep claiming she's the subject of a criminal investigation when there's public knowledge that the claim is false does constitute libel and defamation. A reputation is a valuable asset that should be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.