That’s what Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin at Politico are reporting.
What can it all mean? Not running for re-election, one could understand if indeed she wanted to seek the GOP nod in 2012 but why quit now?
Much of the negative said about Palin during the election was not accurate (as I documented). Since the election, she is often mentioned as a contender for 2012. However, I wonder how an early departure from Alaska will effect those plans.
Regarding Palin vs. Biden:
consider this quote:
from this article
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/sarah-barracuda-palin-and-the-piranhas-of-the-press/
Yes, Kaliphornya. Perhaps the governmental powers will finally learn how to say ‘No’. As in No, you can’t have everything you want, you can’t do everything you want, you can’t save everybody, you can’t feed everybody, you can’t pay for everyone’s medical needs, etc etc. Which has nothing to do with Palin, sorry.
@Eddy,
Good luck, both on the job and money budgeted for the job!
Not just California. Minnesota has been there a few times. Pennsylvania is there right now. LOL. I’m going in tomorrow to take a test to become a part of the state’s clerical pool. Ironically, as of this week, the state hasn’t approved the budget so no one’s getting paid. The wonders of governmental logic.
Ahhhh…
California.
@Eddy,
Yes, the “win” vs. “lose” mindset is confusing to me, especially since there are no judges scoring anything! There is no prize–no ribbon, no trophy, no money, no notoriety at the end of a “discussion” so why treat it as a debate?
It does, however, explain the nature of the tone, the style of writing, the choice of words, in essence, the sarcasm I have tried to point out on occasion on this blog and others. I try not to do that, but if I do, I ask you to call me on it.
@ David,
Paglia is good at identifying cultural pulses because she is willing to look outside the Beltway, something writers/pundits on the East Coast are not only not willing to do, but not ABLE to do–they have been immersed in a culture for so long, they can’t see beyond that culture, kind of like the young person in college who has stayed there so long he or she doesn’t even know another world, the world of work and bills and crying children and runny noses and broken bones and making hard, practical choices, choices that place others ahead of yourself.
I do think that the thing that attracts so many to Palin is that she is indeed not polished; right or not, they believe that means she is speaking from the heart (that’s up to them to decide for themselves, not me), but they prefer her style and words to the words of pols whom they absolutely know are speaking from a script, a script meant to mislead or a script meant to say absolutely nothing at all.
Also, regarding the article, I never knew there was ever, ever a negative story about Chelsea Clinton, nor do I think I deserved to know one since Chelsea is not an elected official, yet I despise how American “journalism” has devolved over the last decade or so.
While the government does not issue paychecks to those who call themselves journalists and while it would be incorrect to say we have a direct state-run media, we do have a state-influenced MSM that is, in many ways, hard to distinguish from Pravda. Of course, the non-MSM is no better, whether it’s a left or right wing outlet/site.
Journalists who remain neutral in their writing are a thing of the past.
Here we are in CA without a budget, issuing IOUs, the speaker of the Assembly having walked out of the room, refusing to meet with the guv, and one has to search for comprehensive articles on the topic. The local news shows devote about 60 seconds on the eleven o’clock news to the subject; the newspapers just a few columns. Then too, what percentage of Californians read newspapers or anything else? Too few.
Unless you are one who was issued the IOU, people in CA act as if it’s business as usual, and you know what? It is–because business as usual in California means the state is deadlocked, unmovable, ungovernable! What else is new?
LOL. The difference I’m seeing, though, Michael is that because some view it as a debate, they simply refuse to answer for fear of conceding the point or they answer in vague and undefinable jargon that dodges the challenge or question. I would (and have) happily moved on once an overstatement, understatement or opinion stated as fact is acknowledged. The debate mentality seems to explain why some, though, even after concessions are made to their ‘point’, just won’t let the conversation move on. (Or why notions established and discussed over and over again in previous discussions continue to be reintroduced into new discussions.) Rather than “let’s work together to see where we can find some common ground” it’s “ah, here is their Achilles heel, if they appear to be gaining momentum (i.e. making sense), toss that into the mix–even if it has nothing at all to do with direction of the conversation. We cannot let their side come away looking good.” (Note: because some approach this from a debate sensibility, I am required to state the obvious…that, yes, I realize that’s true for both sides.)
Thanks, Carole. Actually I think it was responses to a number of your posts that helped me to start seeing the dynamic that was breaking down our chances of productive conversation. On other threads, you wrote lengthy and thoughtful posts only to have one sentence pulled out and seized upon. (LOL. It happens to me a lot but I could be a bit more objective when someone else was the victim.)
In this thread, though, I didn’t feel that you were debating…or even being testy. You seemed to be trying to explain the appeal that Palin has to some people and why it could actually make her a viable candidate. (If enough of those people get motivated to vote…). Just presenting a point of view. And then Michael, exasperated, declared “you win”. LOL. You were involved in a discussion and he was involved in a debate.
I hunger for us to move on past the same tired and repetitious conversations that this site is famous for…I dream of the day when we’ll actually stay with the actual topic of the discussion without detours. Of the day when instead of dismissing each other’s points of view, we’ll actually find some common middle ground that we could successfully articulate to a very needy world. If the dynamic that some are debating while others are discussing is a principle cause for our dysfunctional conversations, I’m very up for addressing and resolving that dynamic.
Back to topic: My appreciation for Sarah Palin’s qualifications still mirrors Michael’s but the dynamic that Carole expressed is sobering. If Obama (and most of our presidential candidates) are perceived as ‘elitist’, there could be sufficient momentum to back a ‘homespun’ people’s candidate. Every elitist criticism of her could be summarily discounted and rejected simply because it sounds elitist.
@Eddy,
Great explanation–you have captured the difference.
I suspect that often we all start by “discussing,” or trying/intending to, then end up debating.
Lord knows, neither of us is guilty of that, huh Eddy? 🙂
Unrelated…but more Paglia on a faith that is beyond reason and words…faith that creates the energy for an odd word:
Ex-gay…that is too small to describe what has happened.
From Camille Paglia a true, liberal feminist:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/07/08/reader_letters/
Also:
When engaged in a debate, the principal focus is to spot and expose the flaws in what our opponent has said. We downplay their strong arguments and magnify any flaws. In our own presentation, we choose our words very carefully so as not to give our opponent ‘an in’ or ‘a target’.
In an honest discussion, we look for those things we can agree on and minimize our areas of disagreement when possible. When presenting our point of view, we can be totally forthright because our goal is to enhance the understanding of both ‘our team members’ and our opponents. I maintain that a ‘debate mindset’ sets us up for more miscommunication (we sometimes use words that are purposely muddled) and less productive results (we happily detour over one misspoken word or phrase while skimming past paragraphs worthy of being highlighted or elaborated upon). An honest discussion wouldn’t gloss over the flaw; it would acknowledge it and either discuss it or table it. Principally, though, an honest discussion wouldn’t shift focus away from the good stuff to highlight the bad. That’s the biggest danger I see in the debate approach.
Another danger is that the debate approach divides us into opposing teams. We tend to see each other through that filter. “Oh, you’re on that team, therefore you must think that….” LOL. Sometimes we actually say words to that effect. What’s more treacherous is when we think that without saying it…when we read clearly written words but then run them through our filter and hear something other than what the writer said.
She may be folksy and enthusiastic, and lots of people like that, but I still maintain that she’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Whether she quit or not is frankly not of much concern to me, since I’m not a resident of Alaska. There’s far too much going on here in my own state of California for me to be concerned about who will or won’t be running for president in 2012, or who is or isn’t the governor of Alaska. Sorry. Everyone who ran for President or Veep this past time had weaknesses, and with the culture of celebrity, it’s probably going to get worse not better. I would have felt best with Huckabee or Hillary. Oh well, life goes on and fortunately my life doesn’t stand or fall based on who’s in charge in Washington D.C. in the Congress, White House, and Supreme Court.
BTW, Joe didn’t go to school on a full ride scholarship, as he said. Reporters checked his record. I have forgotten the particulars now, but IIRC, he didn’t get an academic scholarship at all.
For some time, he was telling audiences that he graduated in the top ten in law school. Notice that is not what he says here. His comments are a maze of untruths.
Notice also that what he said Sunday about the US’s stance on Israel initiating a strike on Iran was reversed by Obama’s team today. They’re ready to kill him. If I were Joe, I’d be sure to hire a taster.
Department of law? OMG. I am cringing. Still, can we call this “uneducated”? Sounds like she cut class a lot.
It’s a wonder that the one Biden-Palin debate didn’t drive all voters to drink.
For more laughs, here is a Joe Biden classic: mind you, from speech to speech his academic and law school accomplishments changed “in his head.”
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1219507341
Well other than there being no national ‘department of law,’ Palin seems to have no conception of ‘special prosecutors’ or of impeachment. Yes, she sure does appear to be that stupid; or perhaps the imperiousness of the previous republican presidency has given her some rather unAmerican ideas.
. . .
Sorry #3 should read “male ex-gays”.
@Mary: I am puzzled as to why I seem to rankle you so. Many here agree with me. Let’s review:
(1) I think “ex-gay” is confusing and potentially misleading — and that it should be “officially retired”. Alan Chambers agrees.
(2) I think NARTH is not rigorously scientfic. Dr, Throckmorton agrees.
(3) I think make ex-gays are still SSA, not straight. Eddy agrees.
(4) I think EXODUS should stay out of politics. Wemdy Gritter and Robbi Kenney (one the founders of EXODUS) agrees.
(5) I think Palin is not qualified to be President. Eddy agrees.
(6) I think the Bible is not perfectly clear on homosexuality. Eddy agrees.
(7) I think that Paul Cameron’s teachings are “evil”. Dr. Throckmorton agrees.
(8) I think EXODUS has sometimes overstated claims of “change” — I think both Dr. Throckmorton and Eddy would agree.
(9) I think that no one knows what “causes” gayness — I know Dr. Throckmorton agrees.
(10) I think that EXODUS and NARTH ought to be much more careful about who they affiliate with, which experts they “cite” and why. I think Dr. Throckmorton would agree.
(11) I think gays can be Christian. I hope everyone agrees.
(12) I think each person must, in the end, live according to their individual conscience before God — and that only God is the final judge. I sure hope everyone agrees.
How so, Mary? Please be more specific. Give me a couple of examples…
Michael,
You overgeneralize – alot. You globalize from one person to the next without much differentiation.
From Wikipedia:
I do think of what we do here as a (usually good-natured) “debate” because we are often arguing a proposition or question — yay nor nay: Is Palin qualified to be President? Do ex-gays actually become straight? Is the NARTH study “scientific”?
Is the term “ex-gay” useful or misleading? Should EXODUS stay out of politics? Does reparative therapy do harm? Should gay marriage be legal? Does the study of psychology/nature/God show that gayness is disordered, broken or sinful? Can “sexual orientation” be “changed” and to what extent? And then we banter back and forth — usually coridally, but sometimes with some “snark”.
And, from what I have experienced here, we do try to persuade each other (although with little success), challenging each others’ logic or facts — or motives. In the process, we learn.
I know this will sound rather arrogant, but here’s the thing, I am pretty good at this. I’ve had a lot of “preparation time”. I’ll betcha I can argue Eddy’s side of this debate better than Eddy. I am pretty sure I can because I used to believe it myself.
discussion…debate…argumentative…devaluing.
I think we move in all these realms.
For what it’s worth….I guess people can view a topic and the subsequent discussions in different ways.
For instance, I have agreed with Michael that SP leaves much to offer in the way of a Presidential candidate. I made that clear when I stated how, when McCain picked her, I researched her, then concluded she wasn’t what I had hoped, and how I was disappointed in McCain for having chosen her. I also offered my feelings about Joe Biden since I have been following him for many years.
So, about the only thing I think I disagree with Michael about regarding SP is whether I would term her “dumb” or not. He thinks she is; I don’t. I don’t think she is highly educated nor sophisticated, but I don’t equate those two things with being “dumb.” I don’t know if our difference of opinion on that point, however, is a difference regarding definitions or something else. I accept with no problem that his view on that is different from mine; my additional posts on the matter were intended to clarify my position, not persuade him. I simply wanted to explain how/why I reached that conclusion. I didn’t see that as a debate. (Although debates don’t have to be bad, for sure.)
I have been involved in other discussions that I thought were just discussions; when my opinions, explanations, comments, etc. were addressed by others, I looked upon my subsequent posts as attempts to clarify my postion, not as a means of winning debating points and not even as a means of persuading.
You know how sometimes we can say something and another person says, “Really? You think that? Why? Why do you think that?”
Well, on this board, when I post a follow-up in a discussion, I think of it as answering the question “Why do you think that?” I don’t expect that after I have explained the “why” that anyone will be persuaded to my point of view. I only hope they might say, “Well, I don’t necessarily agree, or I disagree strenously, but I now understand how Carole has arrived at that conclusion.”
My only problem with debating (I was on the team in high school too) is that there’s a tendency to go for the point rather than the resolve. LOL. I’d settle for us being a bunch whose discussions sometimes turn into debates but I believe that, in the long run, our talks would be more productive if we viewed them and engaged in them as discussions instead.
I was on the debate team in High School and Jr. College. It’s still one of my hobbies. 🙂
I still think it’s a debate — and that’s a good thing. Thanks to Dr. Throckmorton for hosting it — and I think we all present our positions very well — sometimes with antagonism, but that just reflects how strongly we believe what we believe. I still love ya, Eddy, even though I think you are wrong most of the time. 🙂
I didn’t even think of it as a debate…I’m still thinking ‘discussion’ ought to be our goal. If we’re all approaching things from these differing takes–i.e. debate vs discussion–no wonder we get so testy.
I’m outta here for awhile…my oldest brother’s 25th wedding anniversary celebration.
Later!
It’s a debate, Debate is OK. Flint sharpens steel. Not a contest to see who wins. It’s an exercise in sharpening our insights. I have learned much from those with whom I disagree.
This is a blogsite–a haven for discussion–a place where people should be able to voice their differing opinions with mutual respect. What it isn’t is a contest. The notion of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the conversations is disturbing. Is that the goal of these discussions–that one sides comes out the ‘winner’ at the end? I had always thought that we were all concerned and educated people who were contributing our differing viewpoints to build a better understanding. An opinion is presented for consideration–as another facet of the jewel of understanding. If we see it as ‘winners and losers’, our temptation will be to smash all facets that aren’t exact mirrors of our own. LOL. Maybe that explains the testiness that invades so many of our conversations. Rather than consider-and possibly embrace-the good or valuable that might be contained in a statement, we ‘can’t let them win’ so we scramble to find any flaw, any misspoken word in our efforts to ‘shatter our opponent’. In that scenario, nobody wins.
I give. She is qualified to be president. EXODUS always tells the truth. Ex-gays are straight.
@ Carole,
interesting…as are the comments below the article. She may be a boon to the Republican party financially, ideologically and maybe cross-over voters (moderates). She doesn’t need to run for president to have an effect…or run and lose, like Dean…and still have an effect.
Lowry is often on target. I like him because he isn’t afraid to criticize his own kind as so many pundits, talking heads, and partisans are.
Here’s another interesting perspective:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24606.html
I especially think he is on target about how the media gets apoplectic when they can’t figure something out. I admit that I am as guilty of that as they. We’ve become accustomed to people following a script, and when that script is changed, we assume someone is weird, crazy, instead of looking at our own reactions to the change in plans.
As a woman, I especially liked the writer’s comments about what a CNN anchor surmised. His comments about her speaking style at her announcement also got my attention.
A conservative I respect gets the limitations and motivations of Palin:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_reason_sarahs_skipping_out_178009.htm
Mary: I am just stating my very strong opinions — just like everyone else here. Only God knows what is best.
Seems to me MIchael that only you know what is best. What Alan Chambers should say and do, what Palin should asay and do, what voters should say and do …..
Sounds like a teenager who knows everything and ought to run for president before they find out the truth. Maybe…just maybe…. there is more going on than meets your own eye.
Aren’t there any ebullient, common-sense women in the Republican party who are also well-educated, more experienced, more articultate — and less laughable? Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I ask again, is she the best the Republicans have to offer?
Well – we did not need George Bush. Educated, folksy, socially connected, etc…. the guy ran every business he ever laid hands on into the ground. Palin on the other hand has made profitable actions with her business dealings. Hmmmm….. some people mistake presentation for something else.
I am sure that Palin’s (I assume Republican) supporters would have been just as forgiving of her flaws if she had been the Democratic nominee.
You’re right. Those educated, aloof and priveleged people have really screwed up this country. Time for a change. Maybe common sense and ebullience is all we need. Experience? Education? Public-speaking ability? Who needs ’em? Go Sarah!
I was just thinking about why it is that so many people have already organized for Palin, what it is about her that inspires them, that gives them confidence in her beyond what I said about her being an underdog.
Why is it that her fractured grammar, her inexperience, her lack of substantive knowledge on certain issues (or her inability to convey knowledge of certain issues) does not give them pause?
In some ways, Obama and Palin are opposite sides of the same coin. While both are inexperienced, their styles are polar opposites, yet say much about who they are. He is measured while she is ebullient; he is aloof, while she is folksy; he is grammatically articulate while she is the opposite (although a facility with words is used just as easily to obfuscate as to elucidate) and on and on. A style that pleases some will just as easily rile someone else regardless of positions on issues.
I can think of two things that are important in how some regard her:
1.) People value common sense, especially in hard times, and they know that “book learning,” while laudable, is never a substitute for common sense. We’ve had a succession of Ivy League or military academy- educated presidents and nominees of both parties, yet we find ourselves in a mess. We’ve had a succession of Congresses full of well-heeled, properly educated men and women, primarily lawyers who are pursued by properly well- heeled and educated lobbyists, yet we find ourselves in a mess.
People know that an expensive university does not hand out diplomas in common sense.
2.) People value someone who isn’t afraid of being embarrassed, who isn’t afraid of being made fun of. Those likely to see Sarah Palin as Presidential timber are likely not to have seen her resignation as a quitting but rather as her first big volley, her shot across the bow.
Whereas most of us with insecurites or inadequacies about a whole range of things–the place we were born and raised, our families’ backgrounds, our education or lack of it, our types of jobs, our unspoken or unfulfilled dreams were too timid to stand up to those with better educations, more money, more this or that when we wanted to say something or do something, she has dared to do so, to stand there even as others (the “betters”) laugh at her. While deriders laugh at her for deigning to think she can stand shoulder to shoulder with these others, her supporters laugh at the laughers, knowing that just by having the guts to stand there with her “Watch me if you don’t think I can,” attitude, they and she have already won something that they didn’t have before.
She doesn’t seem to care that people laugh at her, or at least she doesn’t care enough that it prevents her from entering the fray, and THAT is what inspires them. She fulfills their dream of getting in the face of those who think themselves superior. It may not be the exact same thing, but old Harry Truman was made fun of too.
Down deep, many feel that all the education and savoir faire in the world didn’t keep us out of this mess, and I think many feel that arrogance borne of privilege and a fine education may have landed us where we are. That there is a person with Palin’s “I can learn that and do just as good a job, an even better job because all it takes is a bit of common sense” is inspiring to them.
It’s great political theater and an even better human interest story. We’ll see what happens.
I am holding my breath, crossing my fingers, a prayer goes up now and again.
We’ll see what God’s plans were…
Hey, what’s this Geospatial Intelligence thingy…
Ich bin ein beginner…
Michael, please reconsider your assessment of Biden.
Michael, please consider how picking Biden reflected on Obama’s judgment.
Compare Biden with Bush II…
Biden is white and articulate and looks good in a suit…his foreign policy credentials were suppose to be good (he was right about Obama being tested, but that didn’t take much insight)…but I don’t see any impact he is having on Obama’s judgment…
He has repetitively played the baffoon early in this administration, even with a fawning press. What if he were challenged as hard as Palin was?
It would be much worse.
Biden has made more embarassing and inaccurate comments that Dan Quayle did in four years…
Again, not to rehabilitate Palin; but to ask all who advocate on one side or the other to watch the political MEME: a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.
In these cases it distorts and polarizes while blinding us to the obvious inconsistencies and limitations in our own candidate.
It gives us a false sense of having made a “better decision.” When we only may have made a “different decision.”
LOL.
I’d agree she is all of those things many times–but not “dumb.” I have taught too many students who sounded like Sarah Palin (and acted like her as well) to underestimate people like her. You know what they had? An understanding of people, people who would have followed them into hell if they’d been asked.
The very image you mock is what she has decided to use to her advantage, turning her weakness into a strength. What image is that? The country bumpkin who sounds like the woman cop in Fargo, the woman with five kids who has balanced home, family, and job yet who is ridiculed by the liberal elites and sophisticates who refuse to believe that regular folks w/out a fancy education can have common sense that the country values.
Now, while you won’t follow her into hell to do battle, she is the kind of person whom others will follow, much as you might be awed by that. They are the kind of people who have, in their eyes, at least, endured scorn for their lack of education and sophistication, their working class roots, people who’ve been looked down upon by others all their lives. They see a heroine in her. They are rooting for her. Beware those who attack her unfairly.
You know the old questions, “Who’d you like to have a beer with? With whom would you feel safe in a trench with the enemy shooting at you? Who’s got your back?” Millions would say Palin rather than Obama, Schwartzenegger, Biden, Kerry–not enough to elect her President, but millions would take her over any names I could mention.
She understands that appeal. Not dumb. Reminds me of Nixon’s coming up with the “silent majority” which got him elected after we all thought he was dead and buried.
Sarah Palin, like it or not, has a charisma that appeals to a group of people who feel the way they think she feels, as the scorned, the ridiculed. They see her as an underdog, like them, and America loves underdogs, loves to watch them be swatted around as flies by the more powerful, the more beautiful, then watch them be reborn, like a phoenix, watch them get up off the matt, like Rocky Balboa.
They say there were all kinds of websites went up the minute she made her announcement, fan sites, sites to raise money, etc. A phoenix? She’ll be around for a time, just don’t know in what capacity.
We do not know what her objectives are so to me it is hard to opine about the wisdom of her actions.
I guess perhaps inarticulate, rambling and bumbling was a prereq for the Veep job this year.
Like this:
I wanted to make sure I was characterizing her accurately::
Inarticulate, rambling, bumbling — like this: http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2234662
@Michael,
I guess it depends on how one defines dumb . Dumb people rarely get millions of people to see them as a heroine or get themselves elected to a high office.
While you might feel Alaska hardly has the population to qualify the governorship of Alaska as a “high office,” the citizens of Alaska and other states with small populations would not agree with you, Delaware included.
Now, unsophisticated is another story, indeed.
BTW, I believe that she quit. Were I her constituent, I’d be really ticked off. Her decision to quit and her reasons for doing so wouldn’t wash with me. The only thing that might justify her resigning (were I her constituent) is if there were health issues with either her family or with her, but that other stuff she offered in her announcement was pure spin, and transparent spin, at that, proof to me that she is, while unconventional, still a politician through and through.
All governors have to face ethics ploys by their opponents. She is not alone, yet she has chosen to whine about it. Want to play in the big leagues? Don’t whine. Play hard ball. If she wanted to gain viability as a future candidate for higher office, she should have stayed in office, become familiar with and conversant in a range of domestic and international issues, and one day reappeared as a more mature voice. Her youth would allow her to devote several years to seasoning.
I seriously doubt she could ever build maintain a viable and serious political base that results in national office, but she could cause trouble down the road for other Republican candidates. She might feel that even if she falls down in the political arena, she will enjoy the spoils, both financial and emotional, of notoriety.
That she chose not to do stay in her job makes me think she wants to grab a star while it is brightly shining, and in her eyes, enough people think it is shining brightly for her to do so.
So, the fame might actually be her goal as much as anything else, and if that is what she is after, she has already made some headway, hasn’t she? Not “dumb” as I understand the word.
Maybe not. Maybe she just plays a dumb person on TV.
Whoops, one last point–
I read last year that the new DSM might include pseudologia fantastica under the “obsessive compulsive personality disorder” category, but I don’t know what decision has been made.
I hate when I haven’t edited my words carefully enough–
1. I meant “such stories helped to sink his ‘88 Presidential election bid“, not “such stories helped to sink his “88 Presidential election.”
2. Oh, grammar alert! I meant ” least studied,” not “most least studied” !
3. BTW, there are legal considerations that have undermined the APA’s categorizing of pseudologia fantastica as a mental disorder (mostly it concerns the fear that trial lawyers would use such a label as a criminal defense for lying). Furthermore, because pseudologues rarely seek help (or admit they are lying) there is a paucity of research, but lately there have been researchers who do brain imaging who are looking into the matter. Preliminary studies suggest the compulsive liar has more white matter than non-liars and that perhaps the lying stems from neuronal connections in this white matter.
When McCain first announced Palin as his choice, I was intrigued. I did what most who are interested in politics do–searched her bio. I was impressed by her can-do spirit, (although I was not at all surprised by this trait because I have friends who live in Alaska and who, over the years, have acquainted me with the kind of attributes many who live there have). Like many, I was impressed with her spunk, but underimpressed with her resume for so weighty a spot, just “a heartbeat away,” as they say.
Nevertheless, I had hoped she might impress me the more I listened to her, might have convinced me she had a facile mind, a knowledge of world affairs and domestic issues beyond the energy issue–nope. I discovered that McCain had not taken the choice seriously enough and was not looking out for the best interest of the country in that a person with her lack of experience could easily have to step in with no time for training. That told me something about McCain.
I don’t think Sarah Palin is dumb, by any means. True, she hasn’t the kind of education that we usually expect from our leaders, but education is often less important than a leader’s ability to inspire, to espouse values, to frame policies, to build coalitions, etc. No, she’s not dumb at all. However, she lacks not only experience, but a rudimentary knowledge of world history and lacks familiarity with the history of issues that have shaped our country. When she couldn’t answer the anchorwoman’s question about important Supreme Court decisions (she could only think of Roe v. Wade), I realized she was not (at least not yet ) a person who could inspire confidence.
However, Barrack Obama, while Ivy League educated, while elegant in style, holds many views that I have come to abhor over the last ten years or so of my life, for I believe most of them are anathema to what has made this nation a beacon of hope to those who have struggled to come here–views that, in my view, diminish the role of the individual, discourage self-reliance; plus, he was weaned on the worst kind of machine politics, shaped and mentored by those who run the most systemically corrupt city in the country, more so than NYC. One needn’t spend too much time studying Illinois politics , much less Chicago politics, to understand that one doesn’t rise to even the lowest position there without selling out, without being owned, without being the front for those who pull the strings behind the curtain. Then too, he had no executive experience and that, I feel, is important.
Then came his VP choice. This is really the point of my post.–Joe Biden.
I was heavily involved in politics for a while, especially in the 1988 Presidential election. I have known for a long time from people who know him, stories about Joe Biden, about his “storytelling,” his braggadoccio, his loose lips, his “problem.” I knew of his plagiarism, his law school embarrassment, the parts of speeches lifted from people like Neil Kinnock, Bobby and John Kennedy, and from many others. These were on the public record and were documented by the press at the time; such stories helped to sink his ’88 Presidential election although they weren’t the final death knell.To the average voter, however, these behaviors, while unseemly, were viewed as typical of those with political aspirations, not as indicative of a compulsive personality disorder.
But I knew from those who were in the know that things were worse than that with Joe. And they haven’t gotten better since ’88–and they won’t. Such is the nature of his “problem.”
Consider this last year, in campaigning in Pennsylvania, Biden telling a crowd that he too had relatives who worked in the mines, or his telling a number of smaller audiences that he had a wife and child killed by a drunk driver. Neither story is true. Biden has left behind yards of video tape in which he is heard and seen saying things about details of his own biography that are simply not true, verifiably not true. He is a legend in DC for these stories. This behavior is decades-old.
The “Oh, that’s just Joe” refrain is a testament to the fact that people who know Joe know him to be warm, friendly, and a “storyteller” who can often become a big bore. If you are going to talk to Joe, make sure you have some time to listen to his stories. Then, just when you think you can’t take it anymore, just when you want to tell him “Stop b.s.-ing Joe, ” he does something that makes you love him, and you realize that he isn’t your garden-variety bull-_ _ _ _ artist, that he has something else going on in that head of his, as if he REALLY believes what he is saying is true when he is saying it.
The word “storyteller” is a euphemism for a compulsive liar. Joe Biden suffers from the phenomenon known as pseudologia fantastica (or mythomania) one of the most least studied and understood behaviors. Mythomaniacs can be bright, likeable people. Many are able to hold down regular jobs and keep their families while others haven’t the off-setting interpersonal skills to manage to live a normal life.
Biden has managed, but in DC, there’s always a wink when Biden’s name comes up, and people were astonished that Barrack Obama picked him, for Joe’s problems have not abated over the years. In fact, there are many who feel Biden should never be entrusted with state secrets. It has always been of concern to them. In his early years, they simply thought of him as a “storyteller”; then, they realized his problem was much more serious than that.
Bob Beckel, Bob Shrum, etc.–these long-time democratic operatives have alluded to Biden’s problems. They use euphemistic words themselves, of course, but if you read heavily into the political literature, you will find just how troubled they were by Obama’s choice. I think that Obama thought naively that Joe just tended to talk a lot, but he has found out otherwise.
So, when the election came about, I had to hold my nose to vote. Both candidates had chosen poorly and not, I felt, in the best interest of the country.
Shows you what blind ambition can do.
Sorry Eddy – I’ll try to be more mindful.
I would rather him than Palin — any day. Someone bright, well-educated and articulate — with some legislative and foreign policy experience. Someone with more than a bachelor’s degree in journalism.
Someone who doesn’t come across as a buffoon. I cringed when she opened her mouth. I agree with Eddy — she was laughed at because she was laughable.
Obama’s resume is short…Palin’s is shorter.
McCain could have picked better…but he didn’t.
Do you think Biden being a heartbeat away is a good thing?
So much for Obama’s promises of transparency; he seems to be using the same tools that he criticized, but to different ideological ends.
Don’t fret, Eddy…. lot’s of people have been confused about my gender. Even the WACs and WAVEs tried to recruit me out of high school. But then you’ve tried to make me out to be two people…. and I cannot imagine where you got that idea!
😉
LOL.. It looks like I’m going to have to change my name again. I spell it “EDDY”…it appears that way in all of my posts, I simply can’t figure out why people choose to spell it their way. Sorry, it’s a pet peeve of mine. You call someone the name they prefer to go by. If it’s difficult, you learn to pronounce it. If they spell it a certain way, you don’t alter the spelling because you know someone who spelled it differently. People direct comments to ‘Eddie’ and I wonder when that guy dropped into the conversation. LOL. This is probably the 3rd or 4th time this has happened in recent months. I must be a tad touchy because I find it a bit disconcerting.
But beyond that, Palin is being ‘bashed’ not for being a woman but for being Palin. I took exception to the notion that we were bashing her because of her gender. I do believe that a few of those who have spoken negatively of Sarah Palin were very much in favor of another female, Hillary Clinton. If the gender card is being played, please expose it for all to see. If it isn’t being played, please don’t minimize our criticisms of Palin by branding them misogynistic. Let’s actually talk her merits (or deficits) as a candidate rather than attack the supposed motives behind the criticisms.
On education alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qT6PfLmePo
2008 population for the state of Alaska: 686,293. That’s less that a third of the population of Riverside County, where I live. Alaska’s population is only twice that of the city I live in.
The state of Illinois has 12,831,970. She may be qualified, barely, to run a large city, but she’s simply not qualified to be President. There must be, must be more qualified, less laughable Republican men and women out there.
I voted Obama because I could not, in good conscience, vote for a ticket that would put Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office — her proximity to Russia and witch-proofi status notwithstanding..
It is hard to know what kind of blessings Obama may have had as a child overseas…all sorts of cultures have all sorts of rituals.
Michael…as I read you earlier post, I thought you were ready to vote for McCain, until Palin…
I was arguing that both Obama and Palin had very short resumes.
MIchael,
The analogy I made was that she has experience in a pretty big way in politics and governing. To discount that the way you do is equivalent to my discounting your experience with ex gay issues. You are not entirely experienced but you do hav e some – albeit pretty far in the past.
David: I am not praising Obama. I am saying the she is not qualified to be President. Of course, she may have an certain advantage — she comes pre-blessed against witchcraft. Can Obama say that?
That’s fine Eddie. I do get tired of the female/Palin bashing. From Letterman to here. At least your words are direct.
We can have the same tired arguments about each other’s leaders deficits (exaggerated)….
It results in aggressively choosing someone who is equally disqualified based on ideology, bullet statements and snarky analysis.
From Powerline Regarding Obama: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/07/03/storm-clouds-on-the-fourth-of-july/
Although they may pretend otherwise, even Obama’s choir in the mainstream media seems to know he’s finished, their defenses of his wildly over-priced medical and cap-and-trade schemes perfunctory at best. Everyone knows we can’t afford them. His stimulus plan – if you could call it his, maybe it’s Geithner’s, maybe it’s someone else’s, maybe it’s not a plan at all – has produced absolutely nothing. In fact, I have met not one person of any ideology who evinces genuine confidence in it.
On the foreign policy front, it’s more embarrassing. He switches positions every day, such as they are, while acting like a petit-bourgeois snob with our allies and then, when people with genuine passion for democracy emerge on the scene (the courageous Iranian protestors), behaves like a cringeworthy, equivocating creep.
Palin was viable as a VP candidate because of her proven reformist agenda. She went against her own party, for goodness sake. McCain picked her because is he prone to such “maverick” choices (some called it reckless…and tried to find a pattern…I never found this criticism to hold much water; McCain picked Palin in part out of dissrespect for Obama; the American people made a reckless choice in that).
Obama has no foreign policy experience…although he has visited a lot of countries.
Obama’s reformist instincts rarely, if ever, go against party leaders (first) and party ideology (second).
Time will tell how all this plays out; Palin would have been hidden as VP; much as Quayle was…he later was not viable.
Obama can not hide behind anyone…and his errors are clear, and his limitations, very real.
Boy…this is treacherous ground, trying to justify peoples political aspirations based on certain criteria.
Obama has been able to run a campaign…he has yet to demonstrate he can govern. His actions domestically (stimulus) and internationally (Iran, Honduras, Nato) continue to raise doubts, if not about his judgment, about his ideology…
His ideology becomes clearer and it is a failed ideology internationally and economically. He is well-educated…and capable…but if his ideology is flawed, it doesn’t really matter.
Mary-
I’ve scrolled through this topic thread several times and fail to find what justifies your tone against ‘us boys’. Michael’s comments were not anti-women; they questioned SP’s presidential qualifications. Mine expressed my concerns about her while asking a question about what makes her presidential. Another male blogger, while expressing his distrust in her abilities, simply went to other possible explanations for her stepping down. Lynn David was the other ‘anti’ voice…and I keep forgetting whether Lynn David is a male voice, a female voice or a composite. (Not being snarky LD…I have vague recollection from long ago that your blog name is a blending of your name and your partners.) Anyway, I did find substance in Lynn David’s comments.
I truly never believed that we’d have an African-American president before we had a woman president. I certainly have no problems with a woman president but I simply don’t think that Palin is the one. (LOL. I was too tired after celebrating the 4th with family all day yesterday that I didn’t comment last evening. But I went to bed musing if there’s a counterpart to the term ‘misogynist’ that describes ‘male bashing’ and off-handed gender related slurs.)
David,
LOL – Obama proved he was her better many months ago – and continues to do so! I’m sorry you don’t see it 😉
Here Here Michael – Colin Powell was an incredibly smart and insightful Republican – and what happened to him? The Bush administration all but pushed him out when he so much as offered a word of caution regarding moving into Iraq. In the end he “supported” Bush but it was clear from statements he made he didn’t think it was a smart move.
Republicans – some anyway – don’t seem all that worried about supporting and upholding the smart ones in their party – and yes, the same thing can be said of Democrats unfortunately.
Wait a sec. I may have been too harsh. Perhaps Cindy McCain is right that Palin is uniquely qualified on international politics…
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/31/cindy-palin-russia/
I do tend to insist and repeat. Lord knows, no one else here seems to do that. I thought you were questioning my authority on things related to EXODUS and my ability to say anything relevant to “ex-gay” stuff.
So, let’s get back to the bashing.
MIchael – it is only you he seems on insisting and repeating yourself. Yes, you may get back to the conversation – Palin bashing.
Happy 4th of July everyone….
I have read that Palin’s father told FOX News that she is resigning because of negativity toward her in the media – a constant defense she had to put on against ethics complaints. If so resigning your chosen, sworn duty to the people of Alaska is only going to give her more negative notices in the press. In that vein there are rumors of financial and other scandals, but an Alaskan blogger has speculated that a coming poll of Alaskans might have been the key – if Palin were to have low numbers.
@ David: I don’t think “Republican candidates are stupid”. I just wonder why they don’t nominate the really smart ones. (Don’t get defensive. I have asked myself the very same thing about Democrats…)
And I don’t “complain about everyone else who is conservative“. Heck, some of my best friend’s are conservative… 🙂
Mary, in all fairness, instead of just jumping on me, you might also want to take Eddy to task. He agrees with you on the ex-gay issue — but he agrees with me on Palin.
We are talking politics here — and her qualifications to be President. This has nothing to do with EXODUS.
How about Elizabeth Dole. Did anyone ask her? Did she say no?
I am not Republican bashing. The democrats have been an embarassment many times over. I vote for the person whose positions I admire and whose experience seems most applicable.
Like I said, I was going to vote Republican this last time — until McCain chose her.
What?
Pardon me, but I am not understanding your point, Mary. What does my involvement with EXODUS have to do with this topic? How am I “the king of excuse making” for myself?
I am not making excuses. What are you talking about? I left EXODUS because I was still SSA. I was not, am not, qualitifed on how to make someone heterosexual.
I “did not stick around” because I was convinced, and still am convinced that reparative therapy does not change one’s sexual orientation and does more harm than good.
Since, unlike you, I was there at the very beginning, played a piviotal role in forming EXODUS’s structure and purpose, and have closely followed EXODUS for over 30 years, I think I am very qualified on that topic — and I do have “something to say”.
Back to the topic at hand, even leading republicans didn’t thing McCain chose wisely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMwGPpcKQ4
Democrats to Republicans: Your candidates are stupid
Republicans to Democrats: Your candidates lack common sense (too smart to a fault).
Think Dan Quayle, George W. Bush.
Think Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
Same characterizations over and over and over and over.
There is a good chance we are just extensions of the arguments we have been taught to have…
As oppssoed to obvious experience and succes in politics – we’ll just count that as a zero and focus on all the negative aspects. Way to go Michael – I’ll remember that next time you dredge up YOUR EXPERIENCE with the ex gay world. Obviously – you did not stick around and have nothing to say?
C’mon. You are a king of excuse making for yourself and complaining about everyone else who is conservative.
I have never voted Republican in my life — but I was going to this last time, until McCain chose her.
No accusation against you, MIchael.
Just how politics works nowadays.
I am just asking…aren’t there more highly educated, more sualified Republican women out there. How about one of these:
Cryptic, David. Vague. What are you saying? Am I de-valuing her or marginalizing her when I point out that she doesn’t seem qualified to be president?
Obambi (he he) has gotten Iran wrong and Honduras wrong…with all his intelligence…
I wish for better than Palin…but Obama has yet to prove he is her better.
Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Palin Derangement Syndrome.
As quickly as people raise their heads and their hands…we are tempted to devalue and marginalize.
Obama….
She graduated from Wasilla High School in Wasilla, Alaska. Palin attended one semester at Hawaii Pacific College. She then transferred to North Idaho College, then transferred to the University to the University of Idaho.
She left there and went to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, then transferred back to the University of Idaho where she was able to complete a Bachelor’s Degree in communications-journalism.
She has no post graduate education. She worked as a sports reporter after college and helped her husband with his family’s fishing business.
All of which qualifies her to lead a world power, command the armed forces, head up the executive branch, take the lead in international politics, etc… Yup, she has my vote.
Does she have time to go back to college?
I totally agree.
Happy 4th to all.
At least my take on it is not insulting; it is baffled. Having said that, let me say this.
Studying her budgets and talking to Alaskans during the election made me think she has some real game. But this move and her delivery will probably not inspire confidence in the near term.
The good thing for her politcal ambitions if she has them is that she is only 45; A mere babe (as in the youthful sense) in the woods. She has loads of time to reinvent herself. She could fall off the planet for a whole election cycle and come back in the future as a strong candidate.
So funny with her accomplishments – the insults seems to be how she comes across. No real depth in this discussion here. Just a bunch of ninnies bashing a woman – so it sounds like.
She’s a governor and the writers here are not. She’s gone to the negotiating table over energy, financial and budgets issues for a huge territory of the UNited States and the writers here have not. She’s endured more public criticism of her family , stood up to David Letterman for his outright misogynistic remark and the writers here continue to see her as an airhead. Well, boys – and I mean really – you are writing like boys who just don’t like pretty women who do get the job done. You guys have written nothing of substance and just fluffed your words with empty insults.
Aside from the fact I would slit my throat were Palin to become POTUS, there may be other reasons for her stepping down as Gov. This is just multi-times removed hearsay, but there has been some speculation that her youngest has had increasing health problems and as a Mom she wants more time to focus on her family. As to her political aspirations, only time will tell. The implications in her press conference implied she was stepping outside govt/politics to make her impact.
Can anyone tell me what would qualify her to be president? Even though I identify as democrat, I was for McCain in the past election until he chose her as his running mate. Beyond name recognition (which wouldn’t be enough to secure the needed votes) what exactly does she bring to the table?
My apologies, Warren, but I feel that she was laughed at because she was laughable. I’m straining to find anything ‘presidential’ about her.
LOL. Michael and I are once again on the same page. I think (unless she had a strong opponent) she’d likely be a good president for the local PTA. But a country? But my country? No, emphatically NO!
A note to Republicans: You do have some good and strong candidates out there who haven’t yet shot themselves in the foot via marital infidelity and scandalous liasons and other hypocrisies, please spend the next few years giving them some media exposure and put them up for consideration when the time comes. Oh, and don’t pull a Hillary…let’s not start the battle too early.
More information on “grassroots” supporters gathering across the nation to support Sarah Palin for President in 2012 can be found online at http://www.palin4pres2012.com
Note, the website is in danger of crashing due to the flood of readers and supporters signing up to show their interest in a Palin Candidacy. The GOP establishment had better watch out, Sarah Palin and Ron Paul combined with the power of the internet will remove the stranglehold of GOP special interests and the elites who have brought the party to its knees in defeat in the 2008 elections.
Loved this commentary. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31727978/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001#storyContinued
What happened to the Republican party, anyway? Seems like once they lost the “new civil war” (you remember, the “…we value the family, democrats do not”…war) they all all momentum. Yawn…
Is *NOW* a quitter… oh well.
I sure don’ t understand this. Is she giving up as governor only so she can kibbutz in the the new governor’s affairs? What political status can she have as a person who is not a quitter? This is plain dopey….
Why am I stuck with impression that Alaskan governors only served one term of office?
Either way, if Sarah Palin is a lame duck, how did she manage to lose her political power when it was supposedly only getting better?
Sarah Palin will never be a United States President.
Warren, did you debunk the idea that she’s a whiner? Because from what I have listened to and read that is what she did in that speech. All she did was choose to abandon her elected duty as a governor in favor of possible future glory and give a dang poor answer for doing so. She complained about being a lame duck (every Alaskan governor is a lame duck from the moment they enter the job. She complained that she was tired of the Alaskan old-boy network, but… what? She didn’t take it on and vanquish it when she first became governor?
I bet she’s going to work for Donald Wildmon…. or someone like that. Although, likely there is some money-man who will be working behind the scenes when she sets up whatever it is in Washington or wherever….
Conservatives cannot get one embarrassment of a governor/presidential-hopeful (South Carolina) out of office and another governor/presidential-hopeful makes herself into an embarrassment by abandoning her duties as governor and the Alaskan people she pledged to protect. That she took such counsel and turned it into action, disqualifies her for further public office. Whoever gave her this advice should be exposed as someone who should be shunned in political circles as well. Sarah Palin is a political case for the “Peter Principle.”
…
Surely, there must be more intelligent, more qualified, less embarassing, female, Republican senators or governors out there. Or, is she as good as it gets?
The commute from Alaska is a big pain…my bet is she is moving on to bigger and better things; try to locate in the lower 48 to make her national bid…
Schmidt, from McCain’s campaign has kept his focus on her since after the election.
I am sorry and I mean no disrespect, but she comes across as a real airhead — and this was before the spoof on Saturday Night Live. I don’t think she whould run for anything — except maybe president of the local PTA or women’s moose-hunting league…
Could. Maybe there is a scandal brewing? Maybe some of her campaiging plans would be an obvious conflict of interest?
But she could finish her term, eh?
Remember Obama ran for the office for two years. These days your marketing must include a book or two, much more money and many more supporters from a variety of niche markets. It’s not about running in the year before the election anymore.