Open Left - Sarah Palin

Best Joke Of The Week

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

David Letterman:

Sarah Palin says that she felt ambushed when Katie Couric asked her what newspaper she read. This coming from a woman who shoots wolves from a helicopter!

That's not a joke, it's an x-ray of the conservative soul:

Implicit double-standard view of the world? Check!
Implicit sense of entitlement? Check!
Casual violence? Check!
Casual violence towards those helpless to fight back? Check!
Bottomless sense of victimhood? Check!
Utter cluelessness? Check!
Utter cluelessness about one's utter cluelessnes? Check!

And you thought conservatives didn't have souls!

No. That's vampires. And as any fan of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer knows, vampires are capable of seeking redemption.

Remember all the above. It's the key to understanding the conservative talk show rape obsession recently documented by Media Matters:

Democrats as a whole becoming more like the Progressive Caucus

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:26:10 GMT

What percentage of Democratic voters are one or more of the following?

Self-identified not-"white non-Hispanic" (39%)
Self-identified non-Christian (28%)
Some form of vegetarian? (14%*)
A union member (13%)
Not self-identified heterosexual (7%)

(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."

Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)

Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."

Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.

I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.

More in the extended entry
This departs from my prognostications in the past in that I now see it more as a description of the future of the Democratic Party than a likely future progressive governing majority. Through a combination of a long-term decline in immigration (already underway), and by capturing an even larger percentage of the white Christian vote (a process that is long underway), Republicans and conservatives can stay competitive with Democrats electorally for a long time to come. However, this will also necessitate that states and congressional districts currently occupied by Blue Dogs and Senate Conservadems shift toward Republicans, remaking the demographic and cultural composition of the Democratic Party.

Over the long-run, Democrats in Congress will look more like the Progressive Caucus. Right now, the CPC is only group of Democrats in Congress who are representative of the Democratic rank and file. At least 74.7%, or 59 of 79, of the full-voting House members of the CPC are one or more of the following: non-white, non-Christian, or non-straight. Among all other full-voting Democrats in the House, that percentage is only 23.5%, or 42 of 179.

That is an astounding gap. It is also temporary. With such a large percentage of the Democratic rank and file fitting into the five categories described at the top of this post, almost inevitably more Democratic candidates for higher office will fit into those categories, too. Gradually--or maybe not so gradually, if a major Republican wave takes out hordes of Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2010--Democrats in Congress will become demographically and culturally more like members of Progressive Caucus.

This shift is also partially responsible for the current disconnect between Democratic leaders and the Democratic rank and file. The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition. In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party. This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans.

It is in this sense that President Obama can actually be understood as a transitional figure. Obama is able to connect the non-white, cultural progressive, and New Democratic branches of the Democratic Party all at the same time. He has also altered the national political landscape, in that the areas with the largest concentration of white Christian Democrats--which happen to coincide with the areas represented by Blue Dogs--are now the most Republican voting areas in the country. It wasn't long ago that Democrats were competitive in places like Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia were competitive in Presidential elections. Now, those are 5 out of the 14 states that John McCain won by 13% or more. Don't expect them to come back to the fold on the national level anytime soon, either (although the situation is very different in most other parts of the South).

Finally, this shift will also result in figures like Sarah Palin will playing a larger role in the future of the Republican Party. Digby points out that, despite her shortcomings as a candidate in other ways, Palin is good at making jokes about liberal cultural adherents, such as vegetarians, and how this endears her to the social conservative base. As the two parties become even more divided along cultural and demographic lines, more of the successful, conservative, Republican figures will demonstrate this ability.

It is also possible that the coalitions will rearrange themselves, and new dividing lines may form. In fact, this is inevitable, as it is a process that has occurred throughout American history. But from the vantage point of the now, the outlook of the two major coalitions over the next twenty or thirty years points almost entirely to an expansion of the cultural and demographic divide we are already witnessing.

Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President

Bruce Wilson — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:26:31 GMT

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign campaign staffers.
Palin's new autobiography Going Rogue, and the numerous Palin media appearances accompanying the book's release, has provoked a fresh outburst of hostility, especially from McCain campaign head Steve Schmidt - who declared Palin's book to be "all fiction". In June, Schmidt warned that if Palin were nominated as the 2012 GOP presidential candidate the result would be "catastrophic."

Fueling Schmidt's obvious hostility may be an astonishing but little noticed September 2008 "prophecy" from Palin's prayer group leader of almost two decades, Alaska evangelist Mary Glazier, that seemed to envision John McCain winning the 2008 election but then being killed soon thereafter, tragically, in a terrorist attack that would leave Palin to succeed McCain as president.

On September 22, with the 2008 presidential election little more than five weeks away, Glazier sent a prophetic "Warning of Imminent Attack" out through her prayer network (see 1, 2, 3). Glazier later released a slightly sanitized version but her original "warning" concerned an "imminent" terrorist attack that could leave American in mourning with Sarah Palin "stepping into an office that she was mantled for."

Sarah Palin has been close to Mary Glazier throughout the entire course of Palin's political career. On June 13, 2008 Mary Glazier told Christian leaders at a church conference held near Seattle that Palin had joined Glazier's personal prayer group in 1989, around the time Palin went into politics [to listen to excerpt of Glazier's speech, see video at end of story],

"There was a twenty-four year old woman that God began to speak to about entering into politics. She became a part of our prayer group out in Wasilla. Years later, became the mayor of Wasilla. And last year was elected Governor of the state of Alaska. Yes! Hallelujah! At her inauguration she dedicated the state to Jesus Christ. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!"

In the same speech, Glazier described an envisioned campaign of what would appear to be violent "religious cleansing" of unbelievers :

"There is a tipping point, at which, at which time, because of the sin of the land, the people then have to be displaced. But while this measure of wickedness is rising, the measure of faith in the church is rising. God is preparing a people to displace the ones whose sin is rising so that then they tip over and the church goes in - one is removed and the church moves in and takes the territory. Now, that does not mean that the people are removed, because God removes them from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. They are given an opportunity to change allegiances."

A January 2009 Charisma Magazine article, The Faith Of Sarah Palin confirmed that Palin's relationship with Mary Glazier continued into 2008, when Palin and Glazier prayed together both over the phone and at the Alaska Governor's Prayer Breakfast. As the Charisma article quoted Glazier,

"She asked me to pray with her for wisdom and direction," Glazier recalls. "I sensed a real heart of surrender to the will of God in her. God often chooses the least likely people to be at the forefront, and I do believe that God has equipped [Palin] for this hour."

As the article details, Mary Glazier's prayer group has been praying for Palin, whom Glazier feels has been selected by God for political advancement, for the entire length of Palin's political career:

Mary Glazier heads an Alaska-based prayer ministry called Windwalkers International. Charisma caught up with her on her way to a prayer meeting in Anchorage, the purpose of which was to pray specifically for Palin. This is nothing new, according to Glazier. "We actually began to pray for [Palin] before she became mayor of Wasilla," Glazier says. "We felt then that she was the one God had selected."

Mary Glazier is one of two religious leaders (along with Thomas Muthee) associated with Sarah Palin who claim to have successfully fought witches. Glazier has described a campaign of "prayer warfare" which she says her prayer group used to drive a woman, whom Glazier claimed was a witch, out of the state of Alaska. As Glazier told the Christian magazine SpiritLed Woman, for a 2003 article, "As we continued to pray against the spirit of witchcraft, her incense altar caught on fire, her car engine blew up, she went blind in her left eye, and she was diagnosed with cancer."

Glazier is an apostle in C. Peter Wagner's International Coalition of Apostles. Her fellow apostles include retired Col. Jim Ammerman, who controls 6-8 percent of the chaplains in the US military and the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, who has helped shape the Democratic "Third Way" platform on culture war issues such as abortion. The NHCLC has just formed a strategic alliance with John Hagee's Christians United For Israel. Mary Glazier also serves on the elite Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, and is credited with having brought the movement to Alaska. (for more on this religious movement see here)

Rasmussen pro-Palin spin #fail

Chris Bowers — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:10:47 GMT

Rasmussen emailed me this morning to let me know that Sarah Palin is way in touch with her own party. I mean, a full 59% of Republicans think that she share their values! Emphasis mine:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.

Wow! Just 21% of Republicans think that Palin does not represent their values! That's, like, almost as good as Bob Dole! Back in 1996, just 19% of Republicans voted for either Clinton or Perot.

If McCain had been opposed by just 21% of his own party, then he would have only lost by another 3.8% to 7.7%!

And if Bush had been opposed by just 21% of his own party in 2004, he would have only lost Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio! He would hae still managed 213 electoral votes--that's like, pretty good!

Oh wait--I'm forgetting the 20% of Republicans who are undecided about Palin. Hmmm... maybe she isn't quite closing in on bob Dole's level of national viability yet.

Friday night smiles

Chris Bowers — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:30:00 GMT

Pretty dreary day. Here are some links to try and perk you up:

---Larry Sabato on twitter:

If Sarah Palin is the 2012 GOP nominee for President, the Republican party platform will be the longest suicide note ever written.

--Rush Limbaugh on Joe Sestak:

During a three-hour tirade about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to transfer five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States for criminal prosecution, Rush Limbaugh attacked the "dangerous" "ideologue" Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who in a Fox News interview that day discussed his support of Holder's decision.

---Blue Dogs on deficits

--If Democrats do lose a significant number of House seats in 2010, the chamber as a whole will shift to the right. However, given who will lose, the Democratic caucus will actually shift significantly to the left.

--Yey, there is lots of water on the Moon! That's great and all, but if you want something that will really excite you about potential human colonization of space, check out the new VASIMR rocket--it can travel to Mars in only 39 days! Best of all, it was actually designed to ferry people and goods back and forth to a permanent Moon base, and is already being tested on the international space station. The pieces are really falling into place...

--New Stargate Universe tonight-and the premier of the Prisoner on Sunday. Woo-hoo

--Our fundraiser is up to $13,782.99!

What's making you smile tonight?

Discerning the Meaning of the 2009 Elections

Steven J. Gulitti — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:48:45 GMT

It will be weeks, if not months, before the analysis of 2009's off year election results fade from the forefront of political commentary, particularly among conservatives. While the White House spin machine is content with downplaying the results as purely a function of local issues, conservatives have attempted to paint these contests as a referendum on the Obama Administration, or more bizarrely, the next step in "the American people taking back their country". Most seasoned political observers know that off year, special and mid-term elections are characterized by low voter turnout and that party activists play a much greater role in determining the outcome. Viewed through that prism, the 2009 contests fall clearly into the pattern of typical off year elections. Thus, the primary question is this: If the 2009 elections exhibit all of the characteristics of other off year elections, how can they logically be seen as a referendum on the Obama presidency or the opening volley in some great populist uprising. After all, if the American people are so disgusted with the Obama Administration, would the rising chorus of conservative opposition not propel them to action and would we not observe a significant up tick in voter turnout?

Analyzing the Gubernatorial races first, it is impossible to deny that local issues dominated. Democratic strategist Steve McMahon pointed out that property taxes and the increase in insurance rates, both of which are state level issues, are a big part of why Jon Corzine was not re-elected. While not directly involved, scandals played a role in Corzine's demise as well, culminating in last summer's roundup of a cast of characters from politicians to rabbis. Corzine's affiliation with the investment firm Goldman Sachs and his aloof political style did nothing to endear him to the people of New Jersey. As one NPR reporter put it: "Corzine never mastered the art of retail politics." Political columnist A.P. Stoddard pointed on November the 3rd that if Corzine lost it would not be Barack Obama's fault as in New Jersey; Obama had an approval rating in the vicinity of sixty percent in contrast to Corzine's thirty nine percent. In the end, Corzine wound up losing by four percentage points to Chris Christie.

In Virginia, the issues that Republican Bob McDonnell focused on were improving the state's economy, job creation and solving longstanding statewide transportation problems. Of these, only job creation could conceivably be linked back to the Obama Administration. While many voters are skeptical as to just how many jobs the Administration's stimulus has created, most people still believe that Obama inherited a difficult situation, the blame for which cannot be laid at the door of his White House. In contrast to McDonnell, the Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds was a relative unknown who struggled with name recognition till the very end.

What is notable about both races is that the Republican winners eschewed the currently fashionable conservative think tank groupthink, which prescribes a political philosophy that hews to the hard right. As you will recall, following the defeat in the 2008 election cycle, most of the outspoken conservative commentators and theorists claimed that when the G.O.P. moved to the center it lost elections and that future electoral victory could only come by moving further to the right, the further, the better. Neither of the winners in New Jersey or Virginia dwelled on aspects of the "Culture Wars" nor did they resort to the now hackneyed rant about "a slide toward European Socialism." Moreover, both Christie and McDonnell ran upbeat, politically moderate campaigns, devoid of the shrill histrionics that have come to dominate rightwing talk radio or the "political commentators" currently practicing their craft on Fox News. In contrast both Corzine and Deeds ran very negative campaigns to which the voting public now turns an increasingly deaf ear.

Another big issue that can't be ignored is voter turnout. Political writer Paul Loeb summarizes voter turnout as follows: "In exit polls, Virginia voters under 30 dropped from 21% of the 2008 electorate to 10% this year and from 17% to 9% in New Jersey. Minority voting saw a similar decline. In both states, over half the Obama voters of a year ago simply stayed home, more than a million people in both Virginia and New Jersey. With this collapse of the Democratic base, even relatively modest Republican turnout could carry the day, and did." That said if this off year election is characterized by such low turn out levels, how could conservatives make an argument that there is such a dramatic rejection of the Obama agenda? Were the races in New Jersey and Virginia truly a referendum on Obama? If exit polls are any indication, they apparently were not. Edison Research provided a view as to whether or not Obama was a factor in people's decision to vote by way of these exit poll results:

New Jersey:
Support for Obama - 19%
Oppose Obama - 20%
Obama not a factor - 60%

Virginia:
Support for Obama - 18%
Oppose Obama - 24%
Obama not a factor - 55%

Thus in both races over 70% of those who answered exit polls said that Barack Obama did not play a role in their getting out to vote in what were essentially local elections. So much for the idea that the results of this past election constitute a rejection of Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have only moved up since the August Town Hall Follies. Meanwhile, the G.O.P. is polling its lowest approval rating since polling began and only twenty percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party.

Let's now turn to New York's 23rd Election District, where a Republican has held the Congressional seat since 1871. It is in the 23rd, a district that has all of the demographics that favor Republicans, that the newly energized national Conservative movement chose to show just how effective it can be in both defeating a Democrat, upending a moderate Republican and turning the tide on Barack Obama. Prior to the election the district was besieged with conservatives from all over the country including volunteers from prominent conservative grass roots organizations like, The National Organization for Marriage, FreedomWorks, of Tea Party fame, and the Club For Growth, which spent one million dollars backing the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Such conservative luminaries like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who predicted a conservative victory, tried in vain to nationalize the election. The cause of Mr. Hoffman was championed by both the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and by the NeoConservative organ, the Weekly Standard. In the face of this unprecedented conservative effort, Bill Owens won by endorsing the Obama Agenda, in an economically depressed region where unemployment has been north of ten percent for some time. This is the second time since the election of Barack Obama, that a Democrat endorsing Obama's agenda has beaten a Republican with national conservative support in a district that demographically favored the G.O.P. The other instance is the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated Congressional seat earlier this year.

What the outcome of the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District shows is that beyond the world of right wing talk shows, the blogosphere, tea parties and grass roots activism, the appeal of the radical right may be much more limited than had been previously assumed. Could it be that the "August Town Hall Follies" with their tenor of rejection, vitriol and political dramatics have convinced few that conservatives have anything meaningful to offer an electorate that is essentially moderate, but that has been trending to the left over the previous two election cycles? It certainly leaves one to wonder just how effective Sarah Palin can be as a national political figure, seeing as she has yet to have any significant outcome on any race in which she has been involved. After all, isn't she the darling of the base, the one individual that can really turn out a crowd?

Don't get me wrong; there is a wake up call for the Democrats in the results of the 2009 elections and in 2010 there is no guarantee that they won't lose more seats, the incumbent party usually does. If it happened to Ronald Reagan, it can certainly happen to Barack Obama. Obama has clearly lost support among independents and people are rightly concerned about the upward growth in federal spending. At the same time, Americans know that this is no ordinary time and that the situation we currently find ourselves in is not the work of the Obama Administration. But those jumping to the conclusion that 2009 is all that meaningful should heed the words of Purdue University Professor of Political Science, Bert Rockman: "I see no particular harbingers for 2010. While people are deeply unhappy about current conditions, they are also keenly suspicious of Republicans." But the bigger takeaway from all of this is that as far as 2009 is concerned, rumors of Barack Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Based on the facts cited above, claims that a great anti-Obama populist revolution is underway cannot be substantiated. More to the point, the great citizen's revolt to "take back their country" seems only to be alive and well in the delusional fantasyland of tea parties, birthers and far right conservatives who can't seem to abide a climate of much needed political change.

Steven J. Gulitti
New York City
11/6/2009

Common Sense (by Sarah Palin)

tremayne — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:29:00 GMT

Public policy dropout Sarah Palin has written an opinion piece on health care for the Wall Street Journal. I know what you're thinking: "Oh, Sarah, please educate me on this complicated topic." Okay, here we go:

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers

You mean like the unelected, unappointed, unregulated, unprincipled folks currently doing the rationing for the insurance industry?

By SARAH PALIN

And a team of gifted copy editors.

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn't agree more.

If, that is, by "more" you mean "less."

Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

What other kinds of "laws" are there? Non-governing? Someone fire the gifted copy editors.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

Obligatory Reagan quote? Check. Reagan was awesome at saying stuff and then backing it up with nothing.

Follow along for the rest.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Yes, the free market has done an excellent job of lowering costs. Because a health care system with profit as its reason d'etre has been a smashing success.

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

And really, common sense is all we need in life. Forget the "experts" and their fancy "educations." Just, ya know, go with your hunches. Worked out for George Bush right?

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Nevermind all the countries with either socialized or heavily regulated medical systems. Countries with lower health care costs and better health outcomes.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ." First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Yeah, maybe the "waste and inefficiency" referenced here relates to redundant or unnecessary and expensive tests and procedures which hospitals don't worry about too much because they can bill insurance companies or medicaid. It may also be "inefficient" that insurance company executives are bringing down eight or nine digit salaries and giving out huge bonuses. Oh, and it may also be "inefficient" that pharmaceutical executives make hundreds of millions of dollars while they charge customers $200 for a bottle of pills. Oh, and the CBO backtracked on those statements.

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ." Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.

If it "rings true" then it must be true, right? RIGHT? I mean, if it wasn't true then it certainly wouldn't "ring true" would it? See "common sense" above.

Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context.

Translation: they showed up with Hitler posters and weapons and shouted down attempts at dialogue. Also, the current system of invasive procedure after invasive procedure in the final days of ones' life must be preserved! Doctors telling families that such procedures are necessary to keep the patient alive another day/hour = GOOD. Someone telling people about living wills, DNRs, etc. = BAD.

But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

It's a "fact" because I, citizen Palin, just said it's a fact.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure. The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Wait, did Palin just quote from a "study." Doesn't common sense tell us that eggheads who conduct studies are just part of the liberal elite? By the way, Watson Wyatt Worldwide does work for insurance companies. Odd, isn't it?

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats. Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

See, insurance companies are too regulated. That's why they can't serve customers for lower premiums. Get it? We need deregulation. Like we did for the financial industries.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

Yes, it's all been one big 100 year "rush."

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.

First principles? Like, I don't know, maybe:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Or maybe: "the pursuit of happiness." Perhaps she's just referring to something called equality. Also.

No Cure For Stupid Liars

Natasha Chart — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:13:26 GMT

I can't stand these people.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lent credence Sunday to Sarah Palin's claim that the healthcare reform legislation will create "death panels" to judge end-of-life issues.
"Communal standards, historically, is a very dangerous concept," Gingrich said on ABC's "This Week." ...

... I mean, euthanasia? How do they come up with these things?

According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, around 20,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the healthcare they need. ...

Where do they get these ideas?

... Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., died Thursday just a few hours after her insurer, Cigna HealthCare, approved a procedure it had previously described as "too experimental."
..."They have insurance, and there's no reason that the doctors' judgment should be overrided by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office," Jenkins said. ...

I mean, really.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Sun Hudson, a six-month old Texas baby died last week when health care providers at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas removed his life support system over the objections of his mother. The action was authorized under the 1999 Futile Care Law which was signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills. ...

It's like they have some deep well of scarring experience to draw from when making up this bullsh*t, even if it isn't theirs.

... So the hospital invoked the state law that allows it to end life-sustaining treatment in medically futile cases after a 10-day notice to the family. That deadline was voluntarily extended while the hospital and family tried, unsuccessfully as of Monday, to find another facility to care for Emilio.
Catarina Gonzales, 23, who has no other children and cannot have more, denies that her son is nonresponsive, as medical caregivers say, Carden said. She says the boy smiles and turns his head toward voices. ...

Yeah, I can't stand these people. And not only because my 5th metatarsal's broken and I can't really stand.

David Broder IS Sarah Palin!

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:30:00 GMT

This week, at Swing State Project, Crisitunity reminded us of what we've all learned from Alaska bloggers since last August, Sarah Palin is a natural born quitter. Not only did she quit college so often that virtually no one could be found last year who remembered her from any of the places she attended (for example, LA Times, "Sarah Palin's college years left no lasting impression" carried the tag line, "In the five years of her collegiate career, spanning four universities in three states, Palin left behind few traces. Not many professors or students even remember her." See also, AP, and Slate)--but quitting played a key role in laying the ground for her gubernatorial bid:

One other thought about Alaska that just about everyone in the tradmed seems to be missing. Sarah Palin did have a job in between being mayor of Wasilla and Alaska Governor: she was chair of Frank Murkowski's Oil and Gas Commission. How long was she on this Commission? Less than a year... until she quit in January 2004 with a big public huff (leaving the Commission in the lurch with only one member), saying "the experience was taking the 'oomph' out of her passion for government service and she decided to quit rather than becoming bitter." She publicly cited her frustration with being unable to be all straight-talky and mavericky about the corruption and backbiting on the Commission, but the resignation also came at a very convenient time for switching over to lay the groundwork for her successful 2006 gubernatorial run.

So how does someone with such a gift for strategic quitting come to portray herself at the exact antithesis? Well, pretty much the same way that secessionist southern conservatives convince themselves that they're super-patriots: self-delusion. And what's the Palin/Broder tie-in? Again: self-delusion.

Let me explain...
A Patriot Traitor Interlude--With Teabags!

First, the easy stuff, a brief recap of the most recent secessionist moment, the April 15 teabagging moment.

The DKos/R2000 poll on Texas support for secession produced the predictable pattern:

Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation
or as part of the United States of America?
        US    IND
ALL:    61    35
REP:    48    48
IND:    55    40
DEM:    82    15

A pattern that's even clearer when it's put this way:

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry's suggestion
that Texas may need to leave the United States?

       APPR    DIS
ALL:    37      58
REP:	51      44
IND:    43      50
DEM:	16      80

The pattern's predictable because we all know about the Civil War, plus we know about the "my way or the highway" mentality that deeply permeates rightwing thinking. And, of course, there was the whoel Teabagging movement that startted it all. We couldn't tell in advance of the Dkos poll what the exact numbers would be, but we knew it was a given that Republicans would be much more into secession than Democrats would. And so it was.

What's behind this, in part, is something I've written about various times before--sequential thinking, which is illuminated by the following passage from Political Reasoning and Cognition: A Piagetian View by Shawn Rosenberg, Dana Ward, and Stephen Chilton, p. 102-103:

Thus, one is a Boston-Tea-Party-style superpatriot simply by putting on the costume and carrying a sign about taxation and representation--even one that ahistorically says "Taxation With Representation Still Sucks". Thinking in terms of specific, concrete observations and conceptual relations that are "synthetic without being analytic" means that one can claim pretty anything that pops into your head, provided you can repeated it often and vividly enough--i.e. make a real impression. And by gum, if repetition counts, and analysis is out, then all that matters is that the Confederates were revolting, too, just like the Boston Tea Party, so traitors really are more patriotic, so there!

Sarah Barracuda

With Palin, the key is to recognize that not only is she engaged in sequential thinking, but she's also guided by her own internal representations. This is what she means by being "mavericky"--she does whatever she damn well pleases and makes up excuses as she goes along, developing and elaborating on favorite narratives as she goes along.

What this means comes sharply into focus in part of Palin's resignation speech that's been a cause of considerable consternation:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

This extended is obviously incoherent, as Keith Olbermann observed:

OLBERMANN: Passing it, then running out of the court, out of the gym, through the parking lot and out of town...

But the incoherence has a logic to it that directly connects to Palin's contention that staying in her job would be "quitting", while quitting her job is not. What's the logic? Simple: Sarah's personal ambition. Nothing else is real to her.

This is clear from the initial set-up of the passage quoted. The "national full-court press picking away right now" is now is obviously not picking away at Alaska, even Palin isn't deluded enough to think that. It's picking away at her. Of course this is delusional. The press has treated many, many people much worse than it's treated her, but this sort of incompetent GOP politician self-pity is so old and tired that it's no longer cause for any puzzlement. We understand it all too well.

But then there's this:

A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN.

If Palin's the one feeling the full-court press, who exactly is the team? And who is she passing the ball to? By quitting her office, she is quite clearly passing the ball to her Lt. Governor. But that means the team is her administration, and WINNING would be passing its agenda. But this clearly makes no sense, as there are significant differences between Palin's policies and her Lt. Governor's. Plus, of course, there's the fact that the national press practically never even mentions Alaska politics when talking about her. No, the "team" would seem to be movement conservatives, the GOP, or some amorphous entity approximating one or both of them, although, come to think of it, actually purporting to be the American People, as movement conservatives are reflexively incapable of not doing.

Which would seem to be confirmed by the remaining part of the passage aboce, which is still utterly incoherent in its own right, but that definitely rules out any interpretation that has Alaska as its subject:

And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Again, there's no consistent metaphorical interpretation that makes sense of that passage, but seeing it as a self-centered narrative of Palin's own heroic sacrifice makes perfect sense, as it's all about her and her self-representation that involves sequential thinking, which is "not abstrat, do[es] not facilitate generalization, and do[es] not support metaphorical thinking."

Indeed, the fact that Palin's rhetoric makes no sense in terms of any coherent extended metaphor, and only makes sense in terms of her own ever-shifting point-of-view is precisely what binds her supporters so tightly to her: to really, really, really support Sarah Palin, you must think like her--not just sort of like her, but exactly like her, because how she thinks shifts arbitrarily from moment to moment with no external logic whatsoever, jumping from one sequence of appealing imagery to another according to the dictates of whatever demons are closing in on her at that particular point in time.

The Secret Life of David Broder

At first, it might seem odd to think of David Broder in the same terms as Sarah Palin, but their virtual identity reached out and slapped me in the face earlier in the week when I read a diary (alas, I know not where!) that quoted the following entry from Paul Krugman, and then added some crucial additional tid-bits, which I will just have to reconstruct from memory. First, here's Krugman:

Al Franken's secret
David Broder has a column this morning calling for bipartisanship. I know, you're shocked. But what struck me was this bit about Al Franken:
Franken, the loud-mouthed former comedian, will be the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus ...

Two points.
First, implicit in this characterization of Franken is the notion of the Senate as a decorous gentlemen's club. I doubt that club ever existed in reality; but in any case, these days the World's Greatest Deliberative Body is, not to put too fine a point on it, chock full o' nuts. James Inhofe: I rest my case.
Second, Al Franken's dirty secret is that ... he's a big policy wonk.
I used to go on Franken's radio show, all ready to be jocular - and what he wanted to talk about was the arithmetic of Social Security, or the structure of Medicare Part D.
In fact, the only elected official I know who's wonkier than Al Franken is Rush Holt, my congressman - and he used to be the assistant director of Princeton's plasma physics lab. (The campaign's bumper stickers read, "My Congressman IS a rocket scientist.")
So what will Franken do to the level of Senate discourse? He'll raise it.

To which commentator Mim Song added:

and third, Franken's comedy was certainly not of the "loud-mouthed" variety. Another case of projection, I fear.

while "rhetorical tool" elaborated more fully:

And even as a comedian, Franken was never a "loudmouth." Stuart Smalley? His from the scene news reports on SNL with the satelite dish on his head? His standup? His comedy actually comes from understatement. Sam Kinnison was a loudmouth. Al Franken was the quiet nebish in the corner. If you're going to criticize Al Franken, at least have it make sense, anyone who has ever seen him perform knows he's about the furthest thing from a loudmouth.

This last part, from the commentators, is a good place to start (especially having lost the diary that originally hooked me). Broder's erroneous stereotyping not only reveals projection, as Mim Song so aptly notes, it also reveals lack of attention to empirical facts, as "rhetorical tool" points out: he's got the wrong guy. This hooks back to the missing diary, which had a quote underscoring Broder's bored indifference to actual matters of policy. It's not just that Broder is indifferent to policy outcomes, favoring "bipartisanship" as a matter of principle no matter what the result, he can't even be bothered to care about pretending to know anything of real substance--and he's ragging on Franken for supposedly not being serious!

But on top of everything else I've just noted, this also gets back to sequential thinking. For Broder, all that matters is appearances. The fact that Franken never even was a "loud-mouthed comedian" is utterly irrelevant to Broder. All that matters is that image "loud-mouthed comedian" makes it into the sequence of images that he reels off to his readers.

Broder's entire piece is synthetic--put together--without being analytic--composed of rational, reality-based claims which can be subject to critical scrutiny, Of course, Broder's column looks like it has rational claims in it, but they're invariably just bald-faced lies that have been refuted so many times that many folks can refute them in their sleep. They are, in fact, phrases that look like rational claims, but repeated efforts to get Broder to defend the tripe he writes clearly demonstrate that they are no such thing.

In the column in question, for example, Broder says, without citation, "Scholars will also make the point that when such complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas."

Shortly after that, he switches gears to making "pragmatic" arguments, writing:

The simple fact is that White House outreach to Republicans has not failed. It has yielded two of Obama's most important victories. In February, when the White House was searching for 60 votes to end debate on the economic stimulus bill, Obama was rescued by three Republicans -- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who later switched to the Democratic Party.
That vote, 60 to 38, with not a single one to spare, gave Obama an important early win. Had he failed, or suffered a lengthy delay, his presidency would have been off to an awful start.
The second big win came just days ago, when the House for the first time passed an energy bill limiting discharges of environmentally dangerous carbon. The vote -- after days of frantic bargaining -- was 219 to 212.

But, of course, those are two perfect examples that directly refute his claim that "the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas." If this were some unknown personage writing a one-column making these claims, one could plausibly argue he was simply ignorant and mistaken, but nonetheless engaged in rational argumentation.

But Broder's been peddling these same tired old arguments over and over and over again for decades on end, and every time he trots them out the same sorts of glaring contradictions can be found...by any not-overly-ambitious twelve-year-old with an internet connection. His sneering, off-hand mischaracterization of Al Franken was the key to unlocking the code in which he always writes: he is always dealing in trite stereotypical claims, run together without heed to actual evidence or logic. He is a sequential thinker through and theough.

Which, at bottom, is just one more reason that, as Krugman commentator Michael Fallai notes:

I know this is hardly an original observation, but David Broder's idea of bipartisanship is - and has always been - Republicans doing whatever they want and Democrats quietly going along with it.

All the thinking stuff just makes his head hurt, actually. Just like Sarah Palin.

Morning Maybe...(The Tribute Band of Open Left Diaries)

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Maybe it's time the Punditalkcrazy realized that Sarah Palin is the most polarizing politician in the Republican Party, not just America. Rasmussen reports:

Although, Newt is more evenly balanced. (Now there's five words in the English language I bet you never thought you'd see in the same sentence with a negation!)

Maybe Obama meant "fierce advocate against gay rights", though, in all fairness, maybe he didn't mean anything at all.

Maybe Charles Franklin (cofounder of Pollster.com) is smarter than the entire Punditalkcrazy put together. Okay, not saying much. But his take on Palin is all the proof you need....
First he notes how similarly Palin is positioned in terms of base support to where Obama was at the begiining of his White House run:

Looking at those numbers, I would argue that -- as of last week, at least -- Sarah Palin was the Republican best positioned to emulate the tactical model employed by Barack Obama in seeking the Democratic nomination in 2008. Remember that Obama did not begin as the first choice of party insiders or as a "front runner" in horse-race polls. Our trend estimate of vote preference results showed him as the choice of less than 20% of Democrats in late 2006. But Obama started with a real base, a core of true believers that showed up in big numbers whenever Obama gave a speech.
During 2007, the nascent Obama campaign discovered a new model for fundraising and field organizing. They learned they could mine Obama's big crowds for small donations (by selling tickets), In so doing, they obtained the email addresses of their most ardent supporters who they could re-solicit at low cost and channel into a grassroots organization. Thus, although Obama was never a "front runner" in national polls during 2007, his campaign was able to raise $129 million that year, remaining competitive with Clinton and building a small donor/grassroots army that ultimately overwhelmed Clinton in 2008 in dollars and (what turned out to be) all-important efforts to turn out supporters in caucus states.
So the point is this: The Pew numbers show that Palin's base as of June 2009 was as strong as Obama's on the eve of the 2008 campaign. Consider two numbers: Palin's "very favorable" rating last month on the Pew Research survey among all adults was 15%. Obama's very favorable score among all adults on a Pew Research survey in August 2007 was 14%.
As such, it is not completely crazy for Palin want to free herself from the time and travel constraints imposed by her gubernatorial commitments in Alaska.

And then he pulls the plug:

Now...go ahead and un-suspend your disbelief. The parallels between Palin and Obama end there.
Palin and Obama are very different in many ways, but the most important are about political judgment and their approach to their biggest perceived weakness.... [T]here is no question that Obama aimed from the beginning to use his Senate seat broaden his perceived experience, especially in foreign affairs. Palin's resignation takes her in an opposite direction.
Also, while Obama made the most of his base, his campaign always focused on the much larger electorate they knew they needed to convert to win. Moreover, while "change" was clearly the central overarching theme, the Obama campaign worked at key moments to indirectly reassure voters about his readiness for presidency. These efforts included a constant drumbeat of testimonials at key inflection points in Obama's standing during the campaign....
In contrast, by resigning, Sarah Palin is likely digging herself into a much deeper hole. In late October 2008, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 55% of registered voters considered Palin "not qualified" to be president (only 40% considered her qualified). Now, Palin faces a new perceived negative. As George Will put it yesterday, "in her own words, she now is a quitter."

It's called "perspective". As Yogi Berra would say, "You could look it up."

Maybe there's a good reason to think Ron Paul is a nutcase for for yammering on about the gold standard as if it were a magical cure-all. From Brad De Long:

Maybe Frank Ricci isn't the best person to testify against Sonia Sotomayor after all. Seems like Ricci was for "special rights" before he was against them, Talking Points Memo reports:

Ricci is a firefighter who sued the city claiming reverse discrimination in 2003 after officials there discarded the results of a firefighter's promotion test after the test was revealed to have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.

But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford Courant Ricci was singing the opposite tune: "A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic."

....Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says.
Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination.

Two years later, that case was resolved. "In a confidential settlement, struck two years later, Mr. Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees."

If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, "Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn't dyslexic didn't." Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him--including one by Sotomayor's Second Circuit--were overturned.

Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week--this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don't.

Eat your heart out, ~Joe The ~Plumber. That's the way a real pro gets the job done!

Maybe Robert McNamara just reincarnated as General Stanley McChrystal. The Washington Post reports (h/t VLaszlo in Quick Hits):

U.S. General Sees Afghan Army, Police Insufficient
Obama Strategy May Need More Funds, U.S. Troops
By Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the newly arrived top commander in Afghanistan, has concluded that the Afghan security forces will have to be far larger than currently planned if President Obama's strategy for winning the war is to succeed, according to senior military officials.
Such an expansion would require spending billions more than the $7.5 billion the administration has budgeted annually to build up the Afghan army and police over the next several years, and the likely deployment of thousands more U.S. troops as trainers and advisers, officials said.

In standard reincarnation theory, one can only reincarnate from one body into another body after the death of the first body, and before the birth (if not conception) of the second one. However, there are other theories. The Russian mystic Gurdjieff taught that souls reincarnation backwards through time--though only after enormous psychic effort--since reincarnating backwards was the only way one could undo the karma of past acts. And E.J. Gold, author of The American Book of The Dead taught that reincarnation happens constantly, all the time, whether we are aware of it or not. The perception that one exists continuously in a single body is an illusion, he taught. According to Gold, there are four stages of the human lifecycle: birth, life, death and transit, the stage between death and reincaranation. But one can actually slip into transit at any time.

In fact, the introduction of the original edition of the book was the major source material for the Talking Heads song "Once In A Lifetime", which David Byrne and Brian Eno said at the time was drawn largely from random samplings of radio broadcasts in New York City, where the intro to Gold's book could well have been read on the air at WBAI, or some other radio station. The passage:

Is part of Gold's description of how one can slip into transit, and reincarnate into the middle of some other life. Normally, of course, this happens so fast one never notices it. But you never know. McNamara? McChrystal? Psycho Killer? Burning Down The House?

Maybe you've got something of your own to add?

Palin 2008: Clinton Whining About Media Criticism "Does Herself A Disservice To Even Mention It"

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:45:00 GMT

Once again, the one thing conservatives really believe in: double standards!

How the Palin 2012 Campaign Will Look

stormbear — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge

As with most of you, I sat in shock watching the train wreck yesterday. Sarah Palin stood on her lawn and resigned as Governor of Alaska. As hard as I tried, I looked deeply into the background behind Palin and failed to see Russia, but I digress. I am one of those who thinks Palin is going to run for President. She mentioned how she wanted to change things form the outside... and I think that means the outside of Alaska and inside DC.

This strip pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue.

Libertarian Freedom: Sarah Palin Lies Because....

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:00:00 GMT

Sarah Palin Resigns In A Mega-Blizzard of Lies--Revealing A Crucial Difference Between Libertarians and Liberals

It was a slow newsday, Friday before a holiday, so why shouldn't Sarah Palin suck up all the oxygen in five continents? If only that stupid Michael Jackson fellah hadn't died the week before, she could have totally pulled it off. As it was, she did pretty damn well for a couple of hours there. Her big secret? Same as it ever was: she lied. Seven ways from Sunday. She lied about being cleared in all the Alaska investigations; she lied about their cost; she lied about wanting to serve the people of Alaska; she lied about fulfilling her goals; she lied about people attacking her son Trig; she lied about being like a point guard; she lied when she said "and" and "the". She spoke, therefore she lied.

Why does Sarah Palin lie? She lies to get out of trouble; she lies to shift blame; she lies to get even; she lies to get ahead; she lies to hurt her enemies; she lies to amuse her friends; she lies to relieve boredom; she lies to have some fun; she lies because truth is bother; she lies as a key to strategy; she lies because she has no plan; she lies to confuse anyone trying to keep track; she lies to make sense to those not keeping track; she lies for power; she lies because lying works for her; she lies just for the hell of it; she lies because she can; she lies because that's how she expresses her freedom--a very libertarian idea of freedom, I might well add.

Liberals and libertarians are both about freedom, but their concepts of freedom are radically different, and Sarah Palin's compulsive, multipurpose lying is as a good a way as any to approach understanding the differences between them.

In sharp contrast, liberals characteristically express their freedom by telling the truth, inconvenient truths, as Al Gore put it. Truths about racism and war, such as Martin Luther King told, when speaking truth to power. Truths about the social order and tradition that are not supposed to be said.
One way to clarify this difference is my old favorite, Robert Kegan's levels of cognitive development. Liberalism has a natural affinity for level four, characterized by autonomy/self-authorship, stepping outside the level-three socially-constructed self and the world it knows, and passing independent judgment.

Libertarian freedom rejects that world as well, but it does so from a point of view of not understanding, of arbitrary rejection. It does so from level two, the level at which one is one's point of view. "You're not the boss of me" is its snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry. Which is perfectly fine, for a twelve year old. Twelve-year-olds lie a lot. It works for them...or at least it seems to, for a while. But then they turn thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, they start growing up, or at least most of them do. Bit by bit they start learning to see the world from multiple points of view, until the day dawns when they no longer are their point of view any more. Instead, they have a point of view, and that means they can have a mature discussion with others, each with their own point of view.

This is what Sarah Palin can't do. This is why everything reduces to personality clashes with her. From the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum, here's a view from John Bitney, a friend of Palin's from high school and one of the key people who helped her become governor, who subsequently was fired for becoming romantically involved with (later married to) the estranged wife of another close Palin friend:

When I ask Bitney what he makes of the whole Palin phenomenon, he sighs. "What do I take away from this?" he asks. "Oh, I don't know. I don't know. It's just a lot of emotions and stuff. I find it's frustrating dealing with Sarah, because it seems we're always dealing with emotional crap and we never seem to be able to focus on the business at hand that needs to be done. I don't know whether to blame her or pity her for all this emotional upheaval that we're always going through with her. Now we all get to listen to Levi and Bristol. Check my feet for horseshoes if I have to sit there and listen to another talk show. I got involved in helping her become governor because we needed to change some policy directions. Teen abstinence is not why I waved signs for her."

Kegan's explanation of level two consciousness, as I draw on it above, seems to me to be far and away the most parsimonious way to explain the upheaval that Bitney talks about, and that in turn seems the most parsimonious way to explain Sarah Palin in toto. There's nothing wrong with level two consciousness per se. It's just a stage of development. Without it, one could advance to more sophisticated stages.

The problem comes in dealing with matters that are too complex for it, matters more complex than a twelve-year-old's world. Such as high school. Some folks do fine in high school despite being stuck in their twelve-year-old mindset. This goes especially for those at the top of their cliques. These kids don't have to learn their socialization lessons. They don't have to learn to respect, or even understand the existence of other people's points of view. It's up to others to understand them.

At one level, the character Cordelia Chase in Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is a perfect embodiment of this attitude, except for the fact that occasionally she lets slip that she's profoundly aware of her existential condition. ("What, I can't have layers?" she says, in a somewhat different context.) For Cordelia, other people exist only as objects. They have no interiority, no point of view that she can recognize apart from her own. If they agree with here, then they're cool, because they share her point of view. They validate her. Otherwise, she has no use for them. Sound familiar?

Significantly, what spurs Cordelia to begin evolving is her lust for Xander despite the fact she sees him as a social leper, while he sees her as totally vacuous. But that's a topic for another day. Suffice it to say, some form of Force Majeure is needed to break out of this state for those arrested in it.

But Palin is utterly immune to Force Majeure--which is why she is such a mega-hero to her worshipful supporters. Indeed, in her mind, she herself is Force Majeure. And the same is essentially true of all pure libertarians. Their simple grasp of essential truth makes them immune to everything else the world has to offer. "Essential truth" confirms them in the splendid isolation of their own unquestionable point of view.

Level four liberals also elevate their individual points of view above the dictates of social convention. But what differentiates them from level two libertarians is that they know what they are rejecting, and why. Which means they often reject only partially or not at all. One need not reject just because one can reject. They also respect that others may choose to reject or accept differently than they do. The interiority of others is not the total mystery it is to level two libertarians.

As we celebrate this day of freedom, we would do well to reflect on how different the meaning of freedom is between level four liberals and level two libertarians. They are not the only two positions in the world, to be sure. But they do constitute a sharp distinction, the contemplation of which can shed considerable light on both the profound truths and petty details of our shared political lives.

A Palin Theory

tremayne — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:50:29 GMT

Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based blogger for HuffPo is talking about the possibility of criminal charges relating to how her Wasilla home was paid for/built. (Hey, that's just Alaska political tradition, nothing to see here).

But why would she quit over that possibility? Would it be easier to defend yourself on those charges as the sitting Governor or as an ex-Governor? I think the former.

My own take is that Sarah Palin quit to pursue what really matters to her now: money and fame. The politics thing was becoming a drag what with ethics investigations and questions - all those pesky questions! Somewhere inside it had to hurt looking like a fool on national television with Katie Couric blinking at you expectantly for an answer you had no idea how to give or even dodge gracefully. I don't think she wants to do that again or do the work involved to better prepare.

Here's a telling quote from a story in the Alaska Daily News:

Anchorage Rep. Hawker noted that Palin's decision to quit "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches, that type of thing, without being cluttered by state ethics law."

I think that's about right. She may even have lucrative offers before her now. I think the kind of easy money she could make right now is just too appealing for her. Last fall, instead of focusing all her energy on campaigning or preparing for interviews/debates, she spent considerable amounts of time shopping. $150,000 worth. Clothes for the family too. It was her time to cash in - after several years of work as mayor of Wasilla and 2 years as Governor, she was getting paid!

Here's another piece from the ADN story:

Larry Persily, a former aide to Palin in her Washington, D.C., office, said he thinks she is shedding all that is bad about her job as governor -- from the ethics complaints to her bruising fights with the Legislature -- "and she can just be a national star in front of adoring crowds." "It's like the kid who leaves college early for the NBA draft and says, this is when I am at my height in the market and I'm going for it," said Persily, a former Anchorage Daily News opinion editor who is now an aide to Rep. Hawker.

Again, this sounds right to me. Instead of her basketball metaphor - a point guard facing a full-court (and hostile) press who passes the ball to their ~~Lt. Governor~~ teammate - Palin is dropping out of college after 2 years so she can get paid. Losing a Republican primary in 2012 would leave her past her earning peak (anyone heard from Dan Quayle since his aborted Presidential run?).

So, where does that leave Republicans? Let's see. Bobby Jindahl bombed in his non-State of the Union response. Besides, he's 10 years younger than President Obama. He won't run in 2012. Utah Governor Huntsman is off to China. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in 2010. If he wins he would take office in January 2011 which is also when he would need to announce plans for a Presidential run. He's not running. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is still named "Bush." South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is..... oh, you get the point. Pretty much it's Mittens' nomination if he wants it.

The Political Suicide of Sarah Palin?

Steven J. Gulitti — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:35:55 GMT

Sarah Palin's departure from the forefront of American politics is just part and parcel of the continuing kaleidoscope of chaos on the right. In my opinion, her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate was nothing more than a political stunt aimed at capturing the disappointed female supporters of Hilary Clinton. As the current article in Vanity Fair reveals, prominent McCain staffers say that her being picked as a running mate was the single biggest mistake that McCain made in his bid for the presidency. Her selection may have actually led her to think that she had the heft and substance to be a major player on the national scene, but her comments and analytical viewpoints show that she was clearly out of her league and well off of the mark in possessing what it takes to be Vice President of the United States, or Chief Executive. During the 2008 race, Fred Thompson lauded Palin for her prowess as a hunter, saying that: "She could field dress a moose". That would be a great leadership credential if we were living in the Stone Age, but it is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote in the twenty first century.

Sarah Palin may well rile up the base of the Republican Party. That could be a liability as the base can actually derail the G.O.P. in upcoming elections. Republican strategist Mike Murphy recently said: "If the Sarah Palin we perceive today wins the nomination in 2012, the G.O.P. will lose. Most Americans don't think Palin is ready to be President. The base loving you is not enough to get you elected." Conservative columnist Michael Gerson, speaking on the News Hour said of Palin: " She was not ready in 2008" and that," She really alienated women and the college educated on both coasts and that is not how you rebuild the Republican Party." The cold, hard reality is that the Republican Party cannot hope to win without the support of independent voters, whom Palin clearly alienates and whose ranks are now at a seventy-year high as a proportion of the electorate. Based on her chronic foot-in-mouth problems, it is not all that far fetched to say that Palin would be more likely to gain votes among independents by posing naked in Playboy than by taking the stage to promulgate her political views.

The real question is if Governor Palin has not just committed political suicide by leaving the political stage at a time when most political observers have suggested that her political future hinged on saying less and studying more so as to get up to speed with regard to the issues and substance that the top job in this country requires. After eight years of George Bush that" aw shucks" approach just doesn't cut it anymore, unless your only goal is to appeal to the base of the Republican Party.

Steven J. Gulitti
July 3, 2009
New York City

Palin to Resign On July 26th

Chris Bowers — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:32:27 GMT

In a certain sign that she is first looking to cash in, and then run for President in 2012, Sarah Palin will not seek re-election in 2010.

A Republican source close to her political team told CNN's John King that it was a "calculation" she made that "it was time to move on." The governor's "book deal and other issues" were "causing a lot of friction" in her home state, the source said, adding that he believes she is "mapping out a path to 2012."

To put it a different way: she wants to focus on making a lot of money instead of annoying things like governing. Then, she wants to run for President.

Now, Palin is undeniably popular among the Republican grassroots, so she would definitely have a chance at winning the Republican nomination. Drawing 20,000 people to anything in Auburn, New York, is very impressive. She will be able to use this support to raise plenty of money, and probably win caucus states, too. Further, her favorable / unfavorable ratio has hovered around the break-even point ever since the election. That is pretty good for a Republican, and enough that might actually be a threat if the economy doesn't recover. For now, Obama leads Palin 52%-40%, according to the latest poll for 2012.

However, stepping down as Governor halfway through her first term won't give confidence to anyone who already had doubts that she could perform well as President. Maybe it is just because I am a gay Muslim Mexican socialist coastal terrorist secular liberal elitist who doesn't "get" middle America, but this seems like a terrible, terrible strategic move.

P.S.: Many commenters will inevitably say this is becuase of some sort of looming scandal. Maybe, but I am still going with Palin being a bit flaky and looking to cash in.

P.P.S. Here is the video:

Also, Andrea Mitchell is reporting that Palin is "out of politics, period." That actually kind of makes sense.

Alaskan Bloggers Are Smarter Than You

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Sarah Palin claims this photoshopped image of her cuddling an Alaskan media enabler--a fundraising thermometer for investigating her corrupt administration--is an outrageous attack on her Downs Syndrome son, whom she was cuddling in the original.

Are you stupid enough to believe her?

During the Palin/Letterman kerfuffle, the smartest thing written or said came from Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore, whose diary "Top 10 Reasons Sarah Palin's 'Outrage' is Misplaced and A Little Late..." received far too little notice, even though it was picked up by Huffington Post. As Moore wittily revealed, there was, unfortunately, absolutely nothing new or unique about Letterman's joke, it's just that Palin had run out of more appealing options:

10) Last September, a skit on Saturday Night Live suggested incest in the Palin family. "What about the husband?" asked a mock Times reporter. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska!" No outrage. Sarah Palin appeared on the show one month later in late October.

No poutrage over this earlier photoshop with David Letterman.

Apparently, the timing was all wrong.

9) Days after the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, Conan O'Brien joked, "It's true, John McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, has revealed that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Palin said, 'We should never have introduced her to John Edwards.'" Where was the outrage? Was Conan promoting infidelity with an underage girl?
8 ) From two different Tonight Shows: "Governor Palin announced over the weekend that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant. Oh, boy, you thought John Edwards was in trouble before, now he's really done it!" AND..."All the Republicans are heaping praise on Governor Palin. Fred Thompson said, as an actor, he could see them making a movie about Sarah Palin and her family. Didn't they already make that movie? I think it was called 'Knocked Up!'"-Jay Leno
7) Craig Ferguson's skit of "Larry King vs Levi Johnston" asks about "kinky sex" with the drapes open. Craig Ferguson's honorary Alaska citizenship, granted by Governor Palin wasn't rescinded.
6) "According to expense reports, Sarah Palin charged the state of Alaska over $21,000 for her children to travel with her on official business. In fairness to Gov. Palin, when she leaves them home alone they get pregnant." -Seth Meyers (SNL). Sarah Palin was in a sketch with Meyers a week earlier.
5) On October 8, 2008, Sarah Palin walked out on the ice with six year old Piper and 13 year old Willow, before the game, Conan O'Brien said, "Saturday night, Sarah Palin is going to drop the first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers' hockey game. Then Palin will spend the rest of the game trying to keep the hockey players out of her daughter's penalty box."
Oh, yes he did. You get the outrage...but not a peep then. According to the new "logic", O'Brien was advocating for some really sick stuff.

If there's one thing Palin knows how to do it's repeat idiotic moves indefinitely. So only Condi Rice could not have predicted that empowering her Letterman victimhood poutrage would have had the totally predictable results.... this time attacking another Alaska blogger, Linda Kellen Biegel (aka Celtic Blue Diva), for the photoshopped picture at the top of this diary. Here's the backstory, from a third Alaskan blogger, AKMuckraker:

Local Alaskan political watchdog and blogger Linda Kellen Biegel is in the middle of a project. She's working in virtual obscurity in Alaska, to get email records released that she feels will reveal questionable communications between the Palin administration and a local gossip columnist, and a local pro-Palin conservative radio talk show host. Palin herself has appeared on the show many times, in addition to her family members, her lawyer, her spokeswoman and various other members of the administration.
The talk show host in question, Eddie Burke, recently showed up at an Anchorage Assembly meeting to give public testimony about an upcoming Municipal gay rights ordinance wearing this.

A few months ago, security forcibly removed him from another Assembly meeting.
Biegel believes the release of these emails will show a concerted effort between the Palin administration and these two members of the media to coordinate attacks on local watchdogs. She won't know for sure until she can pay the $5500 the state is charging her for costs associated with her records request. Last week she began a fund drive to raise the money online, and each night posted a "thermometer" showing the progress and featuring a different image.
Here's where the fireworks begin. On Tuesday, a picture of Palin holding up her son Trig during that famous speech at the RNC convention became the thermometer graphic. Only in this picture, Trig wasn't Trig. In the image Biegel used, the governor is cuddling a photoshopped baby with the face of Eddie Burke. Disturbing, yes, but meant to illustrate the governor's strange and cozy relationship with this controversial Alaskan figure, according to the blogger.

Of course, the real outrage here is the state charging Biegel $5,500. (The price tag was originally $65,000!) No, wait, the real outrage is that Palin is still in office, given that the State Legislature's investigation found that she broke the law. (See Anchorage Daily News, Columbia Journalism Review, me).

On Thursday, Shannyn Moore wrote:

Linda has blogged for years. She walks with a cane, and has physical disabilities. She has a bi-racial child and is always on the righteous side of fighting discrimination. She attended the Anchorage assembly meetings this week to testify in favor of the ordinance banning discrimination against the GLBT community. Burke attended the same event, protesting the civil rights ordinance with a shirt stating: "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea Bagging, Rascist (yes misspelled), White Guy, Bigot." Yes, Sarah Palin pals around with this fine example of tolerance.
The Palin administration is now calling on Alaskan Democrats to condemn Biegel. Where was the condemnation on Crooks and Liars for photoshopping the same picture with David Letterman last week? Oh, that's right, they don't have a records request on the governor, Linda does.
The attack on Biegel is another example of Palin's "faux outrage." The false victimization spin from of Sarah is her antidote for criticism.
She did it to Letterman, she's doing it to Linda.

Biegel herself has posted a diary today, "Let's correct that misinformation out there about the 'Palin photoshopping'..." Here's just a snippet:

Is Linda Kellen Biegel a "Democratic Operative"?
No, I am not. The Democratic National Convention Committee selected 56 blogs as "State Blogs" to represent their states (and territories, and ex-patriots) at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. That was it!
Other info: I'm a wife, mother of a beautiful daughter and a disabled person myself. Any other biographical information can be found on the left-hand column of the blog.
What exactly is the story behind how the "photoshopped" picture came to be?

I was doing a fundraiser to gather the exhorbitant monies needed for the release of public records from the Governor's Office ($5,552.64) -- a State of Alaska Record's Request. Some of these emails involve Palin-worshipping talk-show-host Eddie Burke and Anchorage Daily News Gossip Columnist and Editor Sheila Toomey.
I had already started so I really couldn't use any of the "thermometer" programs out there (tracks donations and creates a graph) because I had no idea how to make it count the money already in the Paypal account. So, one of my readers offered to photoshop "thermometers" each day for me so the donors could have a visual of how we were doing. He came up with a nice version of the State of Alaska for the second day (we skipped the first...I just put the total up without a thermometer). I wanted to "take that image back" because Conservatives4Palin, a completely non-Alaskan blog, used it for their web-a-thon. On the third day, he sent me the same graphic with the updated percentage, which I put on the blog. Later, he sent the one in question which showed in a humorous way (we thought) the relationship between Palin and Burke. He thought I should have a different one for every day. I didn't have a chance to use it then (I already had the other one up and was away from home) but I told him to do it again for the new percentage tomorrow. He did and, well, you know the rest....
We were both absolutely floored that anyone would take it for anything than what it was...poking fun at the Governor and Eddie Burke. We also realized that because of my "digging" and writing about the questionable activities of Governor Palin, they were just looking for anything they could twist to try and discredit me.

Finally, here's yet another poutrageous picture from Biegel's blog:

You can tell what a menace she is! Just like the whole lot of us.

Alaskans Rally Against Palin's Rejection of Stimulus Funds

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:37:24 GMT

Mudflats reports on a public hearing and rally in Anchorage in opposition to Sarah Palin's refusal of federal stimulus funds, and takes note of just how bizarre this turn of events really is:

The fact that Alaskans actually had to go to these lengths to reaffirm their desire for money coming into the state probably came as a bit of a shock to the likes of Congressman Don Young and former Senator Ted Stevens, whose long reigns in the congressional delegation were based largely on their ability to bring home the federal bacon. This whole "we don't need the money" meme is brand new.

Apparently there are Alaskans who are so madly in love with Palin that they don't mind the fact that she as the advocate for the state of Alaska, suddenly feels more of a sense of duty to save the country money than to represent the interests of her constituents.

Particularly weird given her Alaska Independence Party roots. But then, weird is pretty much all they've got going for them, isn't it? A kid with Downs Syndrome and she's cutting off funds for special education.

Palin Takes Lead In GOP War On Education--Special Needs Kids Take Big Hit

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Anchorage Daily News has reported that Sarah Palin has rejected 31% of Alaska's stimulus package--$288 million--with more than half of that--$170 million--coming from education. (The original announcement said 45%.) ADN has another story on the education leaders' response. Given that Palin herself has a special needs child, and milked that for signs of her own humanity, it's particularly noteworthy (and totally typical) that special education would take one of the bigger hits.

Mudflats has a collection of quotes from prominent Alaskans in a post that also announces a rally for today at the famous Loussac Library, site of the mammoth anti-Palin "welcome back" rally that overshadowed the official one back in September. But the most damaging of the quotes she has comes from a post by blogger/radio host and former GOP legislator Andrew Halcro, who reports:

This was an email I received this morning from a legislative leader:
Here's the scoop on the Big Stim funding. Until 24 hours before her press conference, the Governor was going to accept most everything, and reject a few items that we all pretty much agreed were not acceptable. Most of the Big Stim money is really pretty benign and does not require unsustainable new permanent programs.
The issue became a big tug of war for control of the Gov between folks in state government and Sara PAC. Sara PAC won, literally hours before the announcement was made. Alaska was sacrificed again to the godless pagan illusions of her national ambitions.

No way the folks at home are going to be happy with this.
ADN (3rd link above):

Much of the stimulus package money for education -- about $74 million -- was designated for poor schools and special-needs kids. It was to be spent over the next two academic years.
Most of the other money is meant to help prevent cuts to classrooms, staff and critical services.
"This is the kids' money, not our money," said Lower Yukon superintendent John Lamont.

If there's anything the GOP hates more than eduction, it's education for losers.

ADN (1st link above):

Palin is not taking about $288 million of the $930.7 million that Alaska is due in the federal stimulus. Palin said she is accepting the federal stimulus money that would go for construction projects, but not funding directed at government operations.
"We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government," Palin said. "In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government."

But, of course, with the substantial majority of that money targeted to education, "more positions in government" actually means, you know, teachers (not to mention that the first order of business is preventing them from being fired, apparently, even with their massive oil revenues):

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.

Mudflats quotes Comeau more extensively (it's a good thing bloggers don't do reporting, or this could be embarrassing):

"We're shocked and very disappointed that the governor said she would reject the education stimulus money for Title I and IDEA programs. We believe that we can make very good use of the funds, not only in job preservation but also in adding new positions to ultimately use these funds to increase student achievement for our neediest children....
"One of the opportunities the Anchorage School Board, my administration and I have discussed is to add more preschool programs in Title I schools. Many of the children in neighborhoods served by these schools are not prepared to enter kindergarten. Title I schools have a large number of students who qualify for free and reduced price lunch, have high mobility rates, and are English language learners. Additional programs and support at these schools have proven to make a difference for our students in helping them be ready to enter kindergarten. Stimulus funds could also be used to extend learning time for students who need additional academic assistance.
"Additional stimulus funds designated for IDEA and special education give us a rare opportunity to use an increased amount of money for professional development to assist our classroom educators to better work with students with disabilities. It would also allow us to increase opportunities to use best practices within our Special Education department.

But that's not all. Comeau also addressed Palin's charge that taking money now would put them on the hook for spending more state money in the future:

"If we were to implement additional programs with the stimulus funds offered by President Obama, and the funds were to diminish a few years from now, we would be prepared to redistribute General Fund money or other federal funds to keep programs that have proven to be effective.
ASD would absolutely be transparent and accountable for federal school stimulus funds. We intend to actively engage the public to develop a plan to best use those funds.
"We urge the legislature to engage both the district and the community in a dialogue regarding these stimulus funds very quickly, as the decision on whether to accept the funds is two weeks away, April 3. We hope the legislature is willing to recognize the importance of this money and will take swift action."

The real danger here, of course, is that once Alaskans started spending more on education, they might keep it up on their own--after all, they've got those socialist oil checks going out to each and every one of them every year:

The governor could have a point in not wanting the money, said state House Speaker Mike Chenault. "There's a number of us that have the same concerns about what does it do to our budget in the future," said the Republican from Nikiski.
But Chenault said that the federal education money, in particular, could be good to have.
Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it's important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run. People could come to expect the programs, leaving the state paying for them to continue, said the governor and her allies within the state Legislature.
"This offer from the Congress and the Obama administration is a little bit like having way too much to drink," said Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican from Anchorage. "A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time."

Good heavens, yes! Just look at the New Deal! We've been trying to get rid of Social Security for 70+ years now, and instead, LBJ went ahead and added Medicare as well!

Finally, Mudflats reports this from one of the Dem's gubernatorial candidates:

Bob Poe (D) - Gubernatorial Candidate for 2010:
Federal spending represents about one third of Alaska's economy each year, 59 per cent of Alaska is under federal ownership and Sarah Palin is rejecting $288 million in federal funds because she believes they will give the federal government too much control over Alaska?
The list of things impacted by this narcissistic decision on Palin's part is really too long to go over now, but consider ...
She is turning down almost $[1]75 million in education funding - this money could be used to develop our future workforce for things like the gas pipeline. You can be sure Texas and Oklahoma won't be turning down these funds and may get to use some of ours.
And while the governor may not personally need unemployment insurance or vocational rehabilitation every-day Alaskans are now starting to feel the financial pinch from the global economic decline. [written statement]
"Let me say this as clearly as possible. Sarah Palin is sacrificing Alaska's future for her own politial future." [This morning on KUDO 1080am]

I don't know. That sounds way too reality-based for the land of Sarah Palin. But, you know, folks really do like the idea of their kids getting educated. It was that damned Enlightenment thingie that started it all.

Bigger Drag on the GOP: Palin or Steele?

tremayne — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:12:11 GMT

Quick question for readers of Open Left: which person, after being introduced to the nation with some fanfare, ended up being a bigger liability to the GOP, Sarah Palin or Michael Steele?

When Palin was introduced as John McCain's running mate there was a honeymoon period that lasted a couple weeks before she opened her mouth without benefit of a script. After the interview with Charlie Gibson her favorability ratings started a quick dive and soon (especially after the Couric interview) her negatives were higher than her positives. Any chance McCain had to win Independent voters was gone.

When Steele was introduced there was similar GOP optimism for awhile. Like Palin, he was a rare non-white-male Republican who they hoped would help the GOP expand its base. Nationally he was just as much of an unknown as Palin was before her selection and many Republicans projected their hopes onto him. Like Palin, however, he seems to have a problem speaking without a script (such as the new revelations here). So much of a distraction as he become that he may be dropped as RNC Chair.

Of course there was also talk of dropping Palin from the ticket. But, as many here pointed out, McCain was is in a no-win situation at that point. Keep her and he would lose the moderates. Dump her and he would lose enthusiasm, turnout and contributions from activist Republicans.

A similar situation faces the GOP now only the sides are reversed. Keep Steele and try for moderates or dump Steele (and go with Katon Dawson) take a lot of bad press and give up, to some degree, on moderates. It's a no-win and it's just as fantastic as the McCain situation was last fall.

Your take?