I spent this last weekend at my in-laws. Being that they know I love a good political discussion, they asked me why I thought Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska. My ultra conservative brother in law was perplexed.
"Why would she do that? It doesn't make sense, damnit!" he asked vehemently, "I only voted for McCain because she was on the ticket."
My wife, who is a moderate liberal, couldn't understand it.
"What...she's a quitter? I don't get it."
They both turned to me waiting to hear a political wonk (see:obsessive) 's point of view...the same one I have had since she first opened her mouth.
"She's a fucking moron."
18 comments:
One of the most telling quotes from Palin was on her Facebook page. She said, "... sacrificing my title helps Alaska most."
She thinks of herself as a beauty queen, not a governor. When beauty queens quit, they sacrifice their titles. When governors quit, they abandon their responsibilities. Basically, people are picking on her, and it's just not fun anymore. That, and Alaska is now too hickish and far away from the centers of money and power to be useful to her.
Apparently she's got some sugar daddy who's going to give her a big "book advance" (and, we hope, hire a ghost writer).
According to Anne Applebaum, the Palins make "only" about $211,000. Which is nowhere near enough to cover her half-million dollars in legal fees she's had to spend to defend herself on 15 ethics charges.
Some of those charges are almost certainly petty and politically motivated (like the one about her wearing a particular jacket at some snow machine event). But others -- like trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired -- clearly constitute abuse of power.
My guess is that Palin is correct, and her resignation is best for Alaska (assuming her lieutenant is less loony than Palin, of course). But that's because Palin was never fit to be governor. Or anything else but a beauty queen.
After years of complaining about all these lazy people who cry about being the victim, the Republican party has now become the whiniest victim class in the country.
If Palin can't take the heat from being governor of a state like Alaska -- where the government gives money away -- how could she possibly hope to be president of a country that has real problems, huge deficits and innumerable foreign enemies?
If she really harbors any aspirations to run for president, she just gave all the other Republican contenders for the nomination the best ammunition possible to use against her. But maybe she figures she can beat them in the swimsuit competition.
Sara Palin, (to paraphrase) - "eep urp bleep....output: insta left wing hot flaming anger"
"he thinks of herself as a beauty queen, not a governor. "
Ah, and just like Mark, you apparently have this habit of magically knowing what people think.
Must be how Mark still thinks Obama is going to deliver unicorns.
I don't think Mark is angry...just flatly stating a fact.
Reading your posts on here Sara, you are also a moron. Just stating a fact.
And why am I, Don? Because I call the sky blue? She is, in fact, a moron.
She is, in fact, a moron.
And your evidence for this is . . . ?
(Citations with links, please, and not "appeals to authority.)
And before you begin, you might want to read this. Including the comments. Hell, especially the comments.
Okay, you got me. I really can't read her mind; it's just the hook I used to comment on her resignation. It's an effect of writing, wherein I start out with a particular angle and end with a dig on that same angle.
But this does bring up an interesting issue with political communications in general. Politicians spend millions on crafting their message, hiring writers, carefully honing every word they speak and write.
Why?
Our word choices indicate our internal thought processes and the impression we intend to leave on our listeners. We all know that how someone says something is often more important than what is actually said. Saying "Yes, dear," in the wrong tone at the wrong time can get you into an awful lot of hot water.
We don't speak of the "governor's title." We speak of the governor's office or the position of governor. We do, however, talk about the "title of Miss Alaska" or "the heavyweight title of the world."
If Palin thought of herself as a governor who is just quitting, she would have said something neutral like "Stepping down now helps Alaska most," or "resigning my position," or "leaving the governor's office."
Equally loaded words she could have used include "deserting my post," or "bailing on my constituents," or "sparing the state another year and a half of the agony of my ineptitude."
Given what she wrote, there are three choices: 1) she chose words loaded with the connotations she wanted to impart, or 2) she unintentionally used words that reflected her internal thought processes, or 3) she is incapable of expressing her self succinctly at one of the most critical junctures in her life (or allowed some inept press aide to write the whole thing, which amounts to the same thing).
Thus, "sacrifice my title" makes her sound like Miss Alaska (or, I'll grant you, an aging boxer) committing a supreme act of martyrdom.
Given that she's leaving a $125,000 job for a multi-million dollar book contract so that she can run around the rest of the country and $60,000 a pop for speaking engagements doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me.
Kevin, we're not playing that fucking game again. The one where all of the facts about President Bush are lost in right wing whining about "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Now we have "Palin Derangement Syndrom" in which serious questions about her competence are all ignored because of "bias." If I smell shit, I'm going to assume that someone took a dump somewhere within range of my nostrils. When I find the pile, my suspicions are proved. I am not going to let someone convince me that I am smelling or seeing roses.
The intelligence level of Sarah Palin is as obvious as a giant pile of shit.
I don't need any citations or appeals to authority. Her words and actions are proof enough. Just watch and listen to her. I don't need Vanity Fair to tell me she is a moron.
The interviews she has given clearly show someone completely lacking in basic knowledge of the world. What's worse is she takes offense when you call her on it and then shifts the blame for her idiocy to others. This is a pattern we have seen too many times from the right in the last few years. It's not my fault, it's the media's fault, they cry.
This latest move shows how politically dumb she is. She just gave a ton of ammo to Romney, Gingrich, and Huckabee. I agree with blk. She's not running for office. She's running for Miss America which she thinks is the same thing as the Presidency.
"Politicians spend millions on crafting their message, hiring writers, carefully honing every word they speak and write."
I would believe that if I couldn't go to Barnes and Noble and buy a book of "Bushisms," or if a favorite pass-time of Republicans during the last election cycle wasn't to show old clips of Biden shooting himself in the foot. Obama, too, with or without teleprompter (especially without) seems to offend, piss off, and generally alienate people on a regular basis (not to mention the things like miscounting the number of states, etc).
Yes, most of these are mistakes, but I'm not sure how you could state that any particular politician spends any significant amount of money on speeches or statements. I think that, regardless of your political orientation, you can agree that actual *laws* sure as hell don't have a great level of sophistication.
I punched in "presidential speech writer salary" into Google and it brought up this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2004stafflistb.html
It's a listing in 2004 of White House staff and their respective salaries. Cumulatively, you might be able to conclude that the actual total salaries paid which affect a president's speech might meet or exceed one million, but I seem to recall a rather big deal of Bush's speech writer leaving.
And even reading verbatim (Mark, you can use this as an example of "correct word usage") from speeches, Bush still said stupid things - I contend Obama does as well, even if you agree with the bulk of his statement.
(continued - damn word limit)
And this is all for the *president*. I postulate that you are reading too much into the amount of time, effort, and thought put into any given speech, even if it be a resignation.
As for this,
"1) she chose words loaded with the connotations she wanted to impart, or 2) she unintentionally used words that reflected her internal thought processes, or 3) she is incapable of expressing her self succinctly at one of the most critical junctures in her life (or allowed some inept press aide to write the whole thing, which amounts to the same thing)."
1) Or the connotations you attach to her statements come from your perception of her prior to those statements (for a counter anecdote, I did not get that impression).
2) I find this explanation rather Freudian in that it supposes that you can already distinguish intent from accident in her statement. If you can't clearly conclude #1, I don't see how you can take the other approach (that is, if you can't state with absolution that she did or did not intend particular connotations then it seems especially difficult to be able to conclude subtler facts).
3) Again, this one hinges on your perception of that resignation speech, which is sort of the point you're trying to make (as I understand it) to begin with - that she did not express herself well. Succinctly? Definitely not. Politicians don't understand that concept, so no argument there.
I suppose that my fundamental issue with your argument is that it is fundamentally deconstruction-ism - that tired English class ideology that validates finding meaning where it was not intended (I am reminded of literally thousands of "expert" interpretations of Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" in contrast to the author's statements about the story [no symbolism]).
If I wanted to find evidence in Obama's speeches that he supported flogging penguins with hot dogs, I could probably finagle it pretty easily if I allow myself to freely associate my own connotations with particular phrases and to pre-suppose intent.
Fundamentally,
"Our word choices indicate our internal thought processes and the impression we intend to leave on our listeners."
My contention is with the first statement - it supposes a certain transparency and ability to interpret speech. You suppose, for example, that Palin's definition and connotations associated for / with "sacrifice" are the same as your own, and I note that my own differ from yours (your extrapolation of it being a "supreme act of martyrdom").
" What's worse is she takes offense when you call her on it and then shifts the blame for her idiocy to other"
Evidence.
"The interviews she has given clearly show someone completely lacking in basic knowledge of the world"
Evidence.
"I don't need any citations or appeals to authority."
When you try and make blanket statements you do. Your entire "response" was nothing more than "it's self evident, I don't need to argue it." Sorry, but that isn't an argument and it shows a clear INABILITY to parse and disseminate information.
"The intelligence level of Sarah Palin is as obvious as a giant pile of shit."
I find it interesting that I have not seen, ever, in a year of reading Kevin's blog, a statement made, questioned, and not backed up or retracted by these supposed "right-wingers."
Yet here I can look in one comment thread and see arguments made with basically the implicit, "it's fact and you're stupid if you argue nah nah nah."
Put succinctly, since only blk seems interested in making arguments and points and, y'know, thinking about them...
...it ain't the child of critical thought if you can't and won't back it up.
"One of the most telling quotes from Palin was on her Facebook page. She said, "... sacrificing my title helps Alaska most.""
Y'know, I actually missed this (not to seem like I'm just trying to hit you over the head with anything I can find lying around), but do Facebook comments really stand evaluation against your three potential causes for a statement?
Dang, we're busy in this thread.
Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.
She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.
Liberal: Ha, ha ... Sarah who? She's over, she's toast, a future Trivial Pursuit answer, nothing more.
Normal person: Whatever. How about the North Korean missiles?
Liberal: Can you believe she just resigned the governorship like that? What a quitter!
Normal person: Speaking of quitting, how's work?
Liberal: Did you hear she might get a TV show? There's no way Sarah Palin's getting a TV show! No way! I can't believe stupid Sarah Palin could get her own stupid TV show now. Well, I'm sure not gonna watch it -- that's for sure!
Normal person: Have you seen all the Michael Jackson coverage on TV?
Liberal: How does she think she can run for president in 2012 if she can't finish her term as governor of a Podunk state? She's finished.
Normal person: OK, then! You won't have to vote for her.
Liberal: I was never going to vote for her! But now I'm not going to vote for her twice. And I will never watch her TV show. I am so over her.
Post a Comment