More On Palin

Ken AshfordElection 2012Leave a Comment

The Rude Pundit is (rudely) right:

There's only one way that Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska might have provoked any sympathy whatsoever: if she had just admitted she was in over her head. If Palin had gotten up in front of Miked Duck Lake or wherever the fuck she was, and said, "Okay, look, ya got me. I was an overly ambitious dink who actually tricked people into taking me seriously as a political leader. Who'd've thought it would have worked so well? It was fun last year, talkin' to all those crowds who thought that 'folksy' was a substitute for 'competent,' but lemme tell you, Alaska, America, it ain't. And now that I've realized it, I've decided the best thing I could do is to get out before I do any more damage." It's basically a variation on the "Shit George W. Bush Should Have Said in 2002" speech. And it's pretty much what she actually said, but she didn't have the guts to say it, spinning it instead as bad ol' government and mean ol' media people chasin' her away from what she loves.

Hell, even if she had said, "Governoring is boring and I'm sick of people buggin' me for stuff. I'm headin' to L.A. to make shitloads of money, fuckers," it would have been more honest.

***

[T]he real responsibility rests squarely with the people of Alaska who, like people all over the nation, elected the person who soothed their greed nerve best. Selfish people will, ultimately, behave selfishly. And the morons among us will reveal their true intelligence.

Standing in hip boots in some other damn body of water, Palin was interviewed by various and sundry networks, and she declared, "I am not a quitter; I am a fighter." Goddamn, there's two more words she doesn't know the definition of.

Heh.

Bill Kristol On Sarah Palin (with updates)

Ken AshfordElection 2012, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

He writes:

I like Sarah Palin (though I don't know her well). I respect her (though I'm aware of some of her limitations). I wish her well (though I'm not convinced she should be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee).

I am convinced, though, that she should have a chance to compete and make her case.

Um, she made her case to be vice-president, which is itself a litmus test of whether or not she could be president (the vice-president really having no other role than to be the pres-in-waiting).  And people were generally not pleased — including the majority of Republicans.

In this, I seem to differ from many of my friends in the mainstream media and the Republican establishment. They tend not only to dislike and disdain Palin, they also want to bury her chances now as a presidential possibility. What are they so scared of?

Oh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter.  Two things they're scared of:  (1) a Palin presidency and/or (2) the further demise of the GOP.  Seems rather obvious to me.

It's silly to claim Palin has no chance to win the nomination or the presidency. The fact is, despite a rough campaign in 2008, Palin has been (for what it's worth at this stage) a co-front-runner in polls of GOP primary voters for 2012, along with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. In a recent Pew survey, she had the strongest favorable-unfavorable numbers of the likely candidates among Republicans.

Yeah, but who ARE those candidates?  Newt?  Huckabee?

She has fervent supporters, which would presumably help her in primaries and caucuses. Among the general public, she has a not-great but not-unmanageable 45-44 favorability rating.

Thats, uh, not good.

Will her poll numbers fall because she has opted to step down early from the Alaska governorship? Perhaps. But the short-term effect of that decision will soon be swamped by judgments people make as they see her out and about, speaking and opining on the issues of the day.

Late night comedian jokes?  Dude, she's been in the public spotlight for a year.  We ALL saw her in the debates, when she really avoided answering questions of policy and decided to flirt with the camera.  That's how she opines — by whining about the press and telling everyone she's "not your usual politician".  That's old now; it's going to be an even BIGGER joke by 2012.

Kristol ends his column by saying that Palin may run, but then again she may not.

Thanks for the info, Bill.

MORE OF THE SAME via Ezra Klein:

The Weekly Standard's Jim Prevor thinks Sarah Palin's critics have spoken too soon. Much too soon:

We don’t know what she will do in the private sector. Will she write a thoughtful book? Become a syndicated columnist whose ideas make her a “must read” for everyone? Will she found an important new think tank? An important journal? Spearhead an effort to help the unemployed? Decide to launch a business? Or maybe she will start a new political party?

Will she cure cancer? Perfect cold fusion? Translate ancient Sumerian texts? Restore sight to the blind through the power of her touch? It's hard to say. But it's just like those coastal elites to relentlessly criticize Sarah Palin for healing the blind. It's honorable for countless others to heal the sick. But there's of course a different standard for the decisions she makes.

BONUS PALIN:  In an interview with ABC News,

Palin said she was surprised by the media storm that followed her announcement to leave office, saying she thought it would not have been "such a darn big deal."

Right.  She only sent out a press release to every media outlet in the country.  Or perhaps she doesn't realize how unusual it is for a governor to resign absent a scandal.  Perhaps she thinks it happens all the time.

Palin conceded many people are still confused about why she made the decision to leave office.

"You know why they're confused? I guess they cannot take something nowadays at face value," Palin said.

Well, you didn't really give a reason, Sarah.

But then she did hint at one.

But she said a major factor in the decision was the mounting legal bills she and the state have had to incur to fight ethics charges from her political adversaries. None of the accusations has been proven but, she said, the costs of fighting them have been enormous.

Well, there were accusations which were true, and which she did not fight.

And now, the best part:

Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

I honestly don't know what planet this "politician" lives on.  Aside from the fact there is no White House "Department of Law", there is nothing that protects the President from ethical allegations, "baseless" or otherwise.  Not the Justice Department (which isn't in the White House) nor the Office of General Counsel.

By the way, The state of Alaska does have a Department of Law, but it apparently wasn’t able to keep Palin safe from some of the things she's been charged with, either.

Finally, another conservative pundit's take seems pretty spot-on:

If Palin simply had announced Friday that she was done with politics because she didn't want to bankrupt her family defending against baseless charges, you could applaud. But in leaving the door open for a run-up, Palin blew that.

Instead, the rambling remarks served to reinforce the suspicion that Palin was not up to the No. 2 slot. She's stuck in the victim gear. On the heels of her orgy of indignation over David Letterman's jokes, there's too much "poor me." Palin's attorney told CNN Monday that Palin deliberately chose to resign on July 3 as a "declaration of independence from politics as usual." You would never guess Palin campaigned for the office that she now finds so confining. "If I've learned one thing," Palin said Friday, "life is about choices." Good, because in cleaving to the victim role, Palin chose her path. Americans don't elect victims to the White House.

Of course, this entire post can be summed up with one Tom Tomorrow cartoon:

Tompalin

RIP Robert Strange MacNamara

Ken AshfordIn PassingLeave a Comment

I was a big fan.  Not that I agreed with him or his policies all the time, but I think his life story was fascinating.

Go rent Errol Morris' "The Fog of War", a documentary/interview with Mac.

Palin Is Brilliant

Ken AshfordElection 2012Leave a Comment

The news of Governor Sarah Palin's sudden resignation is, at 24 hours, old news.  It's rather bizarre behavior.  But I love the pro-Sarah spin out there:

Bill Kristol writes:

If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble – but it could be a shrewd one.

After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues – and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early – but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.

That's right.  By resigning, she's showing her dedication to the Alaskan people she was elected to serve.  See how that works?

And if "she's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor", then she's probably a rather ineffective governor.  That's the message.

But my personal favorite pro-Sarah spin is this, from K-Lo at National Review Online:

MSNBC is speculating it's a scandal. 

Or it's a brilliant way to keep people guessing about you, perhaps? 

What exactly is so "brilliant" about keeping people guessing about you?  How well did that work for Mark Sanford?

Anyway, there are basically two camps forming: (1)  Sarah is running TO a presidential nomination; or (2) she is running FROM a scandal.  If it's #1, she really has become the dumbest politician ever.  Not finishing your first term as governor?  NOT very good on the resume.

Personally, I think it's number 2.  There's a federal investigation involving Sarah's new home, which just happens to have the same windows and other structures as the Wasilla Sports Complex boondoggle (that left that town deep in debt when Sarah left).  I guess we'll know soon enough as to whether she got "deals" from friends to whom she gave luctrative construction contracts.

There is a third possibility: that she can't stand the heat.  The recent Vanity Fair piece was devestating, and she clearly cannot not take the crucible of the public spotlight, whining incessently about late-night comedian jokes and so on.

I hope she hangs around though.  Nothing would make the 2012 election more entertaining that to have her in the GOP mix of candidates.

This, by the way, is a very strange woman:

She doesn't really explain WHY she's leaving but instead, attempts to convey the (supposed) benefits of her leaving.  She's trying to convince that this is GOOD for Alaska that she is leaving, and it has nothing to do with personal reasons (or ambition), but all she can talk about in terms of her rationale are personal reasons.

She pats on herself on the back for not engaging in "politics as usual" (well, she's right about that) and how she can affect change for Alaska better on the outside by not being governor (uh….. right).  I also love ths sports metaphors, too, especially how a good point guard in basketball helps the team by… um… walking off the court…. or… uh… something.

On Mark Sanford

Ken AshfordSex ScandalsLeave a Comment

I think Josh Marshall's headline says it all: "Just Go Be With Her!".  But there's more:

Mark Sanford says that at least he will "be able to die knowing I had met my soul mate,"… And if that's not enough, he says that for all the grief his affair has caused, that if the affair means he can never run for president (think the ship's sort of sailed on that one), that it will have been worth it.

That's sweet.  But you know, he's going to have to choose at some point.  Because he's already demonstrated that he can't handle his executive position as governor and a marriage and a mistress.  Yes, it seems that the marriage is over, but remember, it was temporarily over last month when he wafted away to Argentina and virtually abandoned his job.

Which again, is a sweet, perhaps even romantic choice.  But it doesn't sound like presidential material:

Of course, when you're a middle-aged man facing the collapse of your life's work and abandoning hope of being with the woman you call your 'soul mate' rational decision making or a clearly considered plan may be too much to expect. But it does seem like there are two guys here. One saying he wants to serve out his responsibility to his state and reconcile with his wife and another using the press to broadcast a free form love poem to the girlfriend in Argentina.

So he's got to make a decision.  And if he won't, I think the people of South Carolina will make it for him.

Argentinesbed1 

If she's worth it, then he should have no regret about stepping down.

But he's trying to cast himself in the vein of King David.  Nope.  He should try to emulate King Edward VIII, and get off the throne to be with the one he (supposedly) loves.

Unemployment Rate Highest In 26 Years

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

It's now at 9.5%.  Thanks Barack quips the rightwing Gateway Pundit.

Gateway Pundit is either stupid or disingenuous.  Unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator, because employers tend to wait until economic improvement is solidified before they start rehiring again.

Plus, the unemployment rate dropped only 0.1% from May's 9.4%.  This is good news, as it appears that we might not hit the 10% mark as many economists predicted.

And of course, this recession is in its 20th month.  Obama has only been President for five months.  To blame Obama for the bad unemployment numbers is like blaming your lung cancer on the last cigarette you smoked.

GOP Rebukes Bachmann’s Census Boycott Plan

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

I don't know why Bachmann amuses me so, but she does.  Even her own party is embarrassed by her — so much so that they're now going public.  From Think Progress:

Bachclown Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been bragging about the fact that she plans not to answer Census questions this year, which is a violation of federal law punishable with a fine up to $5,000. Bachmann has been mocked by Stephen Colbert and criticized harshly by the largest Minnesota newspaper for her conspiratorial stance.

Now, in the latest rebuke of her off-the-wall claims about the Census, three out of the four House Republicans on the subcommittee that oversees the Census have released a statement calling her boycott plan “llogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country”:

“Boycotting the constitutionally mandated Census is illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country,” Reps. Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and John Mica (Fla.), members of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Achieves, said in a statement Wednesday.

“[A] boycott opens the door for partisans to statistically adjust Census results,” the trio’s statement said. “The partisan manipulation of census data would irreparably transform the Census from being the baseline of our entire statistical system into a tool used to wield political power in Washington.”

According to Roll Call, the three Republicans “approached Bachmann privately over the past few weeks and asked her to stop the boycott,” but “decided to go public because Bachmann appeared unfazed by their request.” Bachmann pushed her boycott plan on Monday in an interview with Sean Hannity.

Census officials have been meeting with Bachmann to try to talk her down from her illogical concerns. CongressDaily reports that McHenry even “showed her printed census materials in the attempt to dispel her fears.” But she remained skeptical. A GOP source said, “As long as Fox News keeps calling, she’s going to keep going.”

Love that last quote.

As Stephen Colbert quipped, maybe it's a good thing that Bachmann is boycotting the census count…. because she would probably include the voices in her head as household members.

On this subject, Steve Benen adds today:

Bachmann talked to Sean Hannity on Fox News last night about her anti-census crusade, and returned to one of her favorite arguments: "Sean, you know the one question they don't ask? They [don't] ask, 'are you an American citizen?' … [T]hey could at least ask if we're an American citizen? They don't bother to ask for that. That's why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it."

Good idea. If you take Bachmann's advice, visit her website, and read the census, you find the American Community Survey put together by the Census Bureau. Question #7 reads: "Where was this person born?" Question #8 reads, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

Bachmann probably should have noticed this before repeatedly going on national television, pleading with people to read the census questions, and railing against the absence of a question that's already there.

Fox News Wants Bin Laden To Strike America Again

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Why?

Because that's the only way to protect America from those librul tree-hugging hippies in Washington DC who are letting America's guard down against the evil ones.  We can't let our guard down because it is sure to result in another terrorist attack on American soil, which is bad, so therefore Osama needs to attack us like he did on 9/11 so that we'll wake up and not ever be attacked again like we were on 9/11.

Wait, what??

But in all seriousness, it says something about the depravity of the right wing media when Americans getting killed is small price to pay… so long as it gives them a chance to crow about how terrible at governing liberals are. 

Sigh.  Priorities, you know.

Scientists Go To Creation Museum: “It’s Rather Scary”

Ken AshfordEducation, GodstuffLeave a Comment

Amusing story in the New York Times:

Creation_Museum_10 PETERSBURG, Ky. — Tamaki Sato was confused by the dinosaur exhibit. The placards described the various dinosaurs as originating from different geological periods — the stegosaurus from the Upper Jurassic, the heterodontosaurus from the Lower Jurassic, the velociraptor from the Upper Cretaceous — yet in each case, the date of demise was the same: around 2348 B.C.

“I was just curious why,” said Dr. Sato, a professor of geology from Tokyo Gakugei University in Japan.

For paleontologists like Dr. Sato, layers of bedrock represent an accumulation over hundreds of millions of years, and the Lower Jurassic is much older than the Upper Cretaceous.

But here in the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, Earth and the universe are just over 6,000 years old, created in six days by God.

***

Near the entrance to the exhibits is an animatronic display that includes a girl feeding a carrot to a squirrel as two dinosaurs stand nearby, a stark departure from natural history museums that say the first humans lived 65 million years after the last dinosaurs.

“I’m speechless,” said Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, who walked around with crossed arms and a grimace. “It’s rather scary.”

***

“I think they should rename the museum — not the Creation Museum, but the Confusion Museum,” said Lisa E. Park, a professor of paleontology at the University of Akron.

“Unfortunately, they do it knowingly,” Dr. Park said. “I was dismayed. As a Christian, I was dismayed.”

Dr. Bengtson noted that to explain how the few species aboard the ark could have diversified to the multitude of animals alive today in only a few thousand years, the museum said simply, “God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.”

“Thus in one sentence they admit that evolution is real,” Dr. Bengtson said, “and that they have to invoke magic to explain how it works.”

***

By the end of the visit, among the dinosaurs, Dr. Briggs seemed amused. “I like the fact the dinosaurs were in the ark,” he said. (About 50 kinds of dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, the museum explains, but later went extinct for unknown reasons.)

The museum, he realized, probably changes few beliefs. “But you worry about the youngsters,” he said.

Dr. Sato likened the museum to an amusement park. “I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed Disneyland,” she said.

Did she enjoy Disneyland?

“Not very much,” she said.

Pictured above, right (click to embiggen):  Eve gets some water from a nearby stream while her pet velociraptor frolics in the brush