Sarah Palin Picks the Kenobi Option?

On Gov. Palin's resignation.

There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

- Nicholas Murray Butler

We at Scragged find ourselves this week in the latter group: Sarah Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation from the governorship of Alaska shocked us like a bolt from the blue.  Very few politicians willingly give up high office; usually they have to be dragged kicking and screaming, their scraping fingernails leaving a trail across the thick carpet, marble foyer, and down the granite steps on the way out.

Then again, there are very few politicians whose most oft-cited speech was actually given not by themselves, but by a derisory impersonator on a satirical TV show ("I can see Russia from my house!")  Nor have many politicians seen famous comics crack jokes about their minor children being publicly raped.  It's not all that common for prominent politicians even to have minor children, much less to bear more children while in office.

Nowhere was the infamous media double standard more clearly apparent than in relation to the Palins.  Barack Obama ruled his family "off limits" even while his wife traveled the country giving speeches about being proud of her country for the first time thanks only to its enlightened adulation of her spouse.  Sarah Palin used her family for nothing more than photo props as politicians have done since time immemorial, and instantly gave rise to her very own cottage industry of conspiracy theorists, dedicated to proving Palin the performer of the medical impossibility of carrying two different pregnancies to two different terms at one and the same time.

One thing we know about Sarah Palin is that she has a strong sense of family duty.  While the whole political world would have expected her to abort Trig Palin when it was found that he would be born with Down's syndrome, she chose instead to carry him to term and raise him like any other child.  The Palin family may have its struggles, and even its failures - but neglect isn't one of them.

A Rolling Stone Gathers No... Mud?

Meanwhile, Gov. Palin's opponents have left no stone unthrown, even the most unlikely.  As permitted by Alaskan law, they have filed innumerable ethics complaints against her - a never-ending avalanche of the trivial, the frivolous, and the downright preposterous.  Yet each and every accusation must receive a full investigation paid for by the taxpayers of Alaska, and a full defense paid for personally by Sarah Palin to the tune of over $500,000.

To date, all have been dismissed as unfounded save two still in process.  Defending against these phony accusations has cost Gov. Palin a fortune she doesn't have and has taken time and resources away from governing.

Furthermore, Alaska is in a difficult position geographically for a leader with a wide-ranging base of popularity.  If you are governor of, say, Arkansas, it's not hard to hop over to another state to give a speech.  Even the governor of Massachusetts can visit and return from half of the states in the continental US within one day.

For an Alaskan, though, going anywhere at all is a massive trek; coming to Washington, DC knocks several days out of the schedule.  Russia would be closer, but there aren't many votes to be found there.  No surprise, then, that whenever Sarah Palin shows up at a conference in the Lower 48, the hue and cry arises: "How dare she leave her state for a week?"

By leaving office, Gov. Palin eliminates these problems.  A private citizen is not subject to state ethics rules and has no restrictions practical or legal on what she chooses to do with her time.  A private citizen can freely rake in large honoraria, helping to rebuild her depleted personal finances.  As foul as the attacks on the Palins already were, they will appear even more foul when directed at a person holding no political office of any kind.

Is this going to stop the assault?  Of course not.

When McCain lost the election, history would have predicted nobody would ever again hear of his failed running-mate.  Who was Michael Dukakis' running-mate, and what happened to him?  What about George Bush Sr.'s?  We all know what's been occupying the time of John Kerry's veep pick, John Edwards, thanks to the good offices of the National Enquirer, but that is not the sort of publicity most politicians want.

Yet something about Sarah Palin drives the left into paroxysms of foam-spewing fury.  Something about her causes Chris Matthews to instantly defenestrate his precious few brain cells, and David Letterman to revert to the ethical standards and locker-room jests of a 14-year-old.  Is it her beauty?  Her instinctive appeal to middle America?

The fact that, unlike virtually any other nationally-known politician, she actually lives the principles she preaches?  Perhaps she represents the anti-feminist - happily married to a hunk of a guy while merrily taking potshots at moose.  Of course, the most likely reason of all is simply that their grinchly hearts are two sizes too small...

Now that she no longer holds the responsibilities or the restrictions of office, Sarah Palin is free to turn her moose-rifle in a different and more profitable direction.  She can hob with the nobs, campaign for other prominent Republicans, and hone her oratory in front of stadiums full of screaming fans.

Or, she can crawl into an igloo up in Wasilla, Alaska and disappear.  Who knows?

We tend to think we have not heard the last of her.  The Angry Left may be about to discover, as Obi-wan Kenobi warned Darth Vader, "If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

And just in time, too.  Prepare for the next installment: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Strikes Back.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Partisanship.
Reader Comments
Palin was never my first choice for the Presidency or anything else. I felt the GOP had stronger choices. However...

The more the left attacked her, the more I liked her. The GOP moderates (like McCain's empty-headed daughter) despise Palin because she reminds them of what the real GOP base is all about. She embarrasses the GOP left because hick "values voters" don't mesh well with country clubs. If only the GOP was just about fiscal responsiblity and nothing more-- oh wait, they don't want that anymore either.

Sometimes, you can't help like someone when they're hated by all the right people.
July 7, 2009 8:24 AM
While I feel a deep amount of sympathy for Mrs. Palin, for all the reasons you noted and more, I don't agree with her decision to jump ship in the manner that she did. Sometimes, leadership is hard. Sometimes, people attack you. Sometimes, your business and your personal life conflict. She signed up for the job and asked the citizens of Alaska to put their trust in her. She should finish out her job. She could get rid of a lot of the attacks, if she stayed in Alaska and kept quiet for awhile. Either way, bailing midterm was not the right decision.
July 7, 2009 8:31 AM
I pray every day that Mrs. Palin and her family remains in good health and that she will continue to fight for conservatives.

Note to Katie Couric: Sara may not know the history of the Supreme Court as well as you do, but then she also has 5 children and a state to run.
July 7, 2009 8:38 AM
Wow Petrarch!

I have to say I am shocked to see a defense of Sarah Palin from someone as intelligent as you.

"Nor have many politicians seen famous comics crack jokes about their minor children being publicly raped."

Why, you even stoop to propagating falsehoods in your defense of her. Everyone knows that Letterman was refering to her oldest daughter, 18-year-old Bristol, and not 14-year-old Willow. Yet, in a desperate bid to continuously cast Sarah Palin in the role of victim, you guys will grasp at anything to achieve that goal.

From the standpoint of Presidential aspirations, at best Sarah Palin is a dummy and a nincompoop; at worst, an idiot.

I mean she makes George W. Bush seem intellectual and downright presidential by comparison. And THAT is no mean feat.

Sarah Palin is 100% responsible for her coverage in the media. And quite honestly, I think the media showed restraint. Other than the "pit bull with lipstick" joke, she did not do a single thing during the campaign or since that was deserving of positive coverage.

If the left is "angry" over Palin, then the right is apoplectic over Obama.

I have never seen an aspiring national candidate as unqualified as Palin, well maybe Sonny Bono, but even he never tried to run for President. And as I alluded to before, she blew "W" away, in the category of least qualified to be President.

And listen, when I talk about "unqualified", I'm not being elitist here. Aside from secondary education, I'm speaking intellectual curiosity and capacity; temperment; communication skills; comportment; basic world view and knowledge; ability to engender respect from political enemies and the rest of the world; and just plain ole common sense.

She appears completely scatter-brained, and is not even minimally qualified any of the above areas.

It just amazes me that SOME on the right are so transparent and undeterred in their hypocritical fawning over a gussied up school marm. If she were a Liberal/Democrat, you guys would be having a field day.
July 7, 2009 9:20 AM
And before the simpleton defenses that "Palin was not running for President" begin, I will say what should need no saying:

She was running for Vice President, so common sense says that by virtue of the fact that if something happens to the President, the person next in line, has to be qualified to assume those duties.

Also, it's no secret she has Presidential aspirations. So I'm speaking to those aspirations as well.

Thank you.
July 7, 2009 9:29 AM
Palin's value lies not in what she knows but in what she cares about. I don't care if she's the brightest or dumbest President. I do care if she cares about the framework of the country and an original interpretation of the Constitution. The President should be not be active campaigner for new causes. The President should worry about the nation's defense and stopping the government from runaway growth. Obama has already become the worst President in modern history. The saps that like him won't realize for probably a decade just how bad he really was.
July 7, 2009 9:52 AM

"Obama has already become the worst President in modern history"

Very true, and particularly important as we discuss Palin.

While campaigning, Obama was long considered intellectual, but we know that his academic experience really meant nothing. He's made a bad economy even worse because he doesn't understand capitalism. For his rich words and glittery teleprompters, he doesn't really know understand the issues he working to 'resolve'.

Palin is perceived to be the exact opposite by the MSM. The MSM tried to paint Reagan the same way - a pretty face with nothing between the ears.

Like I said before... All the right people hate her. That's all the endorsement I need.
July 7, 2009 10:01 AM

Right, "education/academic experience mean nothing".

It's a good thing that the "right people" had sense enough NOT to vote for a ticket, half of which appealed to supporters of the "'know nothing' as a virtue" crowd.

I suspect she's real popular with the Creationalism crowd also.

Who needs science and intellect when understanding and dealing with complex concepts and situations, right?
July 7, 2009 10:22 AM
Richard Nixon is generally considered to be one of the most brilliant presidents we ever had. Does that make him one of the best presidents? I tend to think not.

FDR was famously considered a "second-class mind." Yet he's consistently ranked as one of the greats.

Past a certain minimum that no president has ever approached, I don't think an argument can be made that raw intelligence is connected with success in office.

Oh, and regarding the daughter in the joke, Tony? The New York Daily News reported:

>The CBS funnyman joked Monday of Palin's recent New York visit that "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."<

During that visit, Palin was accompanied only by her 14-year-old daughter Willow. 18-year-old Bristol was back home in Alaska, 4000 miles away from Alex Rodriguez.

I will grant that it's possible Letterman MEANT Bristol, in which case he certainly should have done his research more thoroughly. That sort of humor when referring to teenagers - even ones who are no longer underage - is questionable at best, and dictates a higher level of care. His apology was entirely necessary and appropriate.
July 7, 2009 10:59 AM

You've just seen a great example of what I meant by my last sentence and the subsequent reaction. Sometimes others make your best points for you.
July 7, 2009 11:27 AM
Palin isn't stupid or inexperienced at all. In fact, she has more experience than Bama at running executive operations. Alaska runs an annual profit. The federal government has gotten hideously more in depth under Bama. For being such an idiot, Palin sure has had a lot more success than Bama.
July 7, 2009 11:32 AM
"Past a certain minimum that no president has ever approached..."

And here is the cruxt. I believe Sarah Palin not only "approaches" that minimum, she is below it.

Unless of course that minimum is that of mentally disabled.

When Letterman stated that he "MEANT" Bristol, then it became FACT that that was who he was referring to, and not merely a "possibility".

I will grant that one could reasonably question the "taste" of the joke on the grounds of Bristol's questionable public status, but I believe his apology was inappropriate. He in effect was apologizing for a faux outrage resulting from either the Palins' stupidity and inability to understand the target of the joke, or their cynical twisting of the joke to their advantage in order to, let's say it together, "play the victim of the evil 'elite liberal media'".

The Palins are stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Why should he apologize for a misinterpretation that 99.9% of the population managed to avoid?

July 7, 2009 11:59 AM

"You've just seen a great example of what I meant by my last sentence and the subsequent reaction. Sometimes others make your best points for you."

Yes, we do.

That point being that to some, intelligence is a shortcoming.
July 7, 2009 12:06 PM
"That point being that to some, intelligence is a shortcoming."

Wasn't it William F Buckley who said "I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard Faculty"?

And you know what? He was right. We WOULD be better run that way. Some of the smartest people I know are complete idiots in everything except their very narrow chosen field.

Obama is brilliant at one thing: achieving personal power. Is he good at actually governing, or bettering the lives of the people? That's a totally different issue, and thus far, he's done abysmally. Name ONE good thing he's done that's a) had the intended effect and b) that effect was a beneficial one.
July 7, 2009 12:19 PM
So let me get this straight.

Obama takes over after the complete destruction of the American economy, and its standing in the world, caused and presided over during the past eight years by the most inept administration in history, and after six months, you're taking him to task for having not fixed it?



For real???

"Name ONE good thing he's done that's a) had the intended effect and b) that effect was a beneficial one."

1.) He has increased America's prestige and standing in the world.

I could name others, but I'm not going to turn an article about Sarah Palin, into a debate on President Obama.

Um, and as far as William Buckley?

Big surprise coming from a Yale graduate. :)
July 7, 2009 12:34 PM

"Sometimes others make your best points for you"

LOL. Yes, I've been following this website for a few months, and I've noticed that.

Some time ago, liberals invented an empty but catchy phrase: "Don't be a hater". Ironically, real hate is not only used by the left, it's one of their most strategic tools.

(Is it "hating" to call someone a dummy, nincompoop and idiot? How about relegating a US governor to "gussied up school marm", implicitly ridiculing school marms too.)
July 7, 2009 12:38 PM
"real hate is not only used by the left, it's one of their most strategic tools"

Yep. Enter Palin.
July 7, 2009 12:47 PM
I had to send the children out to recess so that I could reply to this discussion. I must say that I am offended! What is wrong with being a schoolmarm (especially one who is gussied up?) Schoolmarms could easily run the world, young man, and you'd do well to remember that.
July 7, 2009 12:51 PM

You remind me why I didn't respond to your initial post:

You said previously: "Obama has already become the worst President in modern history."

I had to chuckle at your cleverness in attempting to co-opt "hater" for your own dubious purposes.

But it's priceless that you don't seem to realize that your own previous statement is the epitome of "hating".

July 7, 2009 12:58 PM
My apologies Schoolmarm.

Believe it or not, I actually paused before typing that description; I fretted that I might have been giving Palin too much credit, and insulting schoolmarms to boot.

Turns out my concern was not without cause.

Again, my apologies. :)
July 7, 2009 1:02 PM

Since it was clear you ignored my last comment directed towards you (in the Michael Jackson post), I thought I'd respond with the same comment again.

Just as before, it is directed to you, not to your direct comments on this post. It is also clear that you're unable to actually argue a point only throw out unsubstantiated accusations. I'm hoping the following helps:

You call yourself a liberal because "you care." Fine. Conservatives show they care by donating more to charity than liberals: (same article here:

So you go around saying "you care" while conservatives actually care.

Liberalism is simply a way for you to assuage your guilt at the cost of someone else. You let the government take tax money and give a pittance to a needy person and you say you care.

It's time to start thinking... then your caring will actually make a difference.
July 7, 2009 2:46 PM

I cannot be baited or cajoled into responding to the points of a completely off-topic and irrelavent post.

"It is also clear that you're unable to actually argue a point only throw out unsubstantiated accusations."

Yeah, clearly I cannot argue a point...Ya got me there. ::: rolling eyes :::

Also, please see my above post to xdo about being clueless as to one's own guilt of that, which one is attempting to criticize someone else for.

You say "it's time to start thinking", yet you exhibit no independent thought. Your post basically consists of links to other people's thoughts and statistics.

Listen, I am certain, that sooner or later someone will post an article concerning conservative vs. Liberal charitable giving, or some related topic, and I'll respond to it, and then you'll get your big chance.

But until then, how about trying to engage on the topic(s) at hand, rather than following me all over the board with your canned, one-note, fox-news-ticker, by rote, conservative-talking-points attacks?

July 7, 2009 3:55 PM
I think Sarah Palin is a decent, hardworking human being who was ding a good job as governor of AK. The feminists and liberals could not stand her because she showed the lies of everything they say, so they destroyed her.

Jokes about her daughters being raped, incessant ethical complaints that made it impossible for her to do her job, they wanted to destroy her. Let's hope she comes back stronger!

How are we going to get decent people into politics if liberals destroy anyone they don't like?
July 7, 2009 5:14 PM
OK: I'll "bite" on a few things:

1) I believe Sarah Palin not only "approaches" that minimum, she is below it.

You believe? That's all you got. Your feelings about what you think her intelligence level is. No evidence. Nothing to actually back it up. Just an "I believe".

Clearly and unsubstantiated claim - no evidence.

2) The Letterman incident has been clearly discussed - and you've chosen to, again, ignore facts for feelings.

3) Sarah Palin is 100% responsible for her coverage in the media.

No, she's not. The MEDIA is 100% responsible for what's written about her. What's written is often there to get ratings, not be right. Or to make political points (regardless of the accuracy of what's written).

This is what's true of Bush and Obama. What about Obama's 57 states gaff? How about Biden's string of gaffs...including his most recent statements about Israel and Iraq that the administration had to retract.

Evidence is clear that the "media" is biased.

4) He has increased America's prestige and standing in the world.

Evidence for "increased" standing? But, more importantly, WHY does it really matter?

And, wouldn't being a liberal mean you do care about Sarah Palin, too (it's says that in your name). It appears that you really don't care... or selectively care. Where's the real compassion?

Just a few examples...
July 7, 2009 5:47 PM

Obama and Biden are gaffe factories. If it wasn't for the internet, we'd never know about half of them.

Take this one for instance: Obama says that our Constitution is 20 centuries old. Check out the video.

Did you hear about this incident on CNN or NBC? And Obama is supposed to be the "Constitution Scholar" the MSM keeps reminding us about. Indeed.

What if Palin had said this? It would have been just another piece of evidence from Anderson Cooper, Jon Stewart, Katie Couric and the gang of how stupid she is.

I suppose then we should descend into diatribes about how Obama is such a nincompoop and idiot. Right? Nope, because only liberals get away with hate.
July 7, 2009 7:52 PM

Now this is more like it!

You should have posted appropriately before the debate got "stale".


1) Sarah's lack of intelligence and ignorance of the world around her is well documented, and need not be rehashed here. In case you are still feigning ignorance of such evidence, two reminders: Katie Couric, and the Vice Presidential debate.

2) Huh? Number two is a statement. What happened to backing up one's assertions? I stated facts about Letterman, and instead of refuting them, you just said "no they're not".


3) We're not talking about simple gaffes in Palin's case. We're talking about a complete and utter inability to convey real knowledge on a multitude of topics, or even intellectual curiosity.

Heck, she couldn't even name a single magazine or newspaper she reads.

I'm sorry, maybe YOU don't care about someone like that being a hair's breadth from running the country, but luckily the media did their job and informed those of us that do.

Prestige and standing in the world is why George H. W. Bush was able to put together such a successful coalition of countries during the gulf war.

Without the respect of the world community, we basically become a pariah to all but our staunchest allies.

Perfect example: Perhaps if "W" hadn't squandared that standing and prestige, the U.S. might have had the standing to publicly and forcefully support the opposition in Iran during the recent protests.

["And, wouldn't being a liberal mean you do care about Sarah Palin, too (it's says that in your name). It appears that you really don't care... or selectively care. Where's the real compassion?"]

Give me a break please. Because I criticize Sarah Palin, I don't care about her as a human being?


If this is what you consider "arguing your points", I think I like your spouting talking points a lot better.

@lfon, you're looking rather immature and quite transparent in your attempts to appear as though you're ignoring me, all the while pot-shotting my posts under cover of responding to other people.

I mean what is this? Did you swear some sort of oath to never again address my posts directly for so long as you may live (rhetorical question)? You remind me of when my daughter was ten, and she would try not to look at me when she was upset with me.

Why not show some courage and address my posts directly with your OWN arguments instead of "co-signing" (another empty but catchy, and in this case, appropriate liberal phrase) other people's responses, or responding by proxy.

I promise, you'll feel a lot better trying to get a whole bite of your own, rather than nibbling at scraps. :-)

Ok, I wasted entirely too much time here today (mean that in a good way), so the last word is yours Fennoman...Unless of course lfon decides to "man-up" and address me directly. :-D

Til the next time and topic.

July 7, 2009 11:10 PM
So typical Tony. You haven't actually brought up any referenced fact, while at the same time bemoaning how "oh, the big bad CONSERVATIVES won't honestly debate me" A case in point:

"Sarah's lack of intelligence and ignorance of the world around her is well documented, and need not be rehashed here. " You made the claim, you have to back it up (document it), see how that works? Inconveeeenient, I know.

"In case you are still feigning ignorance of such evidence, two reminders: Katie Couric, and the Vice Presidential debate."
A edited interview? That's your evidence? I could talk to you for five minutes and then edit together a soundbite that would make you look like an idiot. I'd probably just play the whole thing though.

As for the debate, I personally thought Sarah tore him up (although you're right, it's Joe Biden, that's not real impressive, a 3 letter word tears him up), at the very least she held her own against a 30 year veteran of the Senate.

"I stated facts about Letterman". No, you didn't. You simply restated his weak, after the fact justification. The fact is, the daughter at Yankee Stadium with Palin was 14 years old, and Letterman joked about her being raped. EVEN IF HE HONESTLY THOUGHT THE 18 YEAR OLD WAS THERE, your defense is "He joked about raping an 18 year old" as if there is anything acceptable about that. Weak. And, frankly, scary if it accurately reflects what you believe. If I made a joke about raping your mom, would that be just fine?

"We're talking about a complete and utter inability to convey real knowledge on a multitude of topics". Your opinion, nothing else. YouTube if full of clips of Sarah conveying her positions clearly. What you mean is that you don't agree with them, which is fine, but it's a totally different kettle of fish.

"or even (a lack of) intellectual curiosity". Statement made without any proof, unless you think "she couldn't even name a single magazine or newspaper she reads." is proof of anything. As a point of fact, Sarah Palin was reading the same things that Obama reads, or Biden, or McCain. If you knew anything about how major national politicians are briefed, you'd know that their staff collates a cross section of pertinent articles from all the major news outlets and the candidate reads that. They don't have time to do otherwise, a presidential campaign is a murderous demand on a candidate's time. Sarah's answer accurately reflected this, I'm sorry that you aren't knowledgeable enough to grasp that.

"Without the respect of the world community, we basically become a pariah to all but our staunchest allies." And which of even these "staunch" allies has supported Obama's initiatives? After all, you yourself said of Obama "He has increased America's prestige and standing in the world." So, since our standing has been increased because Obama is President(your words), tell me, which allies have shown a willingness to take terrorists off our hands? Which allies have sent combat troops to Afghanistan? Examples, man, examples, that's how you argue a point.

Speaking of which, your next statement flatly contradicts your last statement: "Perhaps if "W" hadn't squandared(sp) that standing and prestige, the U.S. might have had the standing to publicly and forcefully support the opposition in Iran during the recent protests." Aside from making another unsupported statement (Bush squandered), you just said that Obama raised our standing in the eyes of the world. Now you're contradicting that to play blame Bush. Which is it? Did Obama raise our standing, or not? And if he did, why wasn't he able to use that increased goodwill to support the Iranian dissidents? You can't have it both ways.

I could go on, but really, I can only kick a puppy for just so long before it becomes abuse. If you want to make statements in a debate, you have to back them up. With facts. Do that and I'd be willing to bet you'd get some actual debate. Now? Now you're just stating your opinions and stomping your foot claiming that nobody will address what you've said when they have a contrary opinion. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to discuss seriously. This is the big leagues fellow, if you're going to bring nothing but that bush league stuff, perhaps you'd be better off with the other Onbamabots over at HuffPo or Kos.

July 8, 2009 12:58 AM

Impressive in style, but not much substance.

Unfortunately, as I said, I've spent too much time here on this topic.

Perhaps next time you'll join the debate early rather than ruminating all day on a response full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

Should be interesting. :)

Now, take a deeeeeeeep breath, and relax.


July 8, 2009 6:10 AM
Even the media recognizes that Sarah Palin's "stupidity" and Joe Biden's "experience" are purely media creations.
July 8, 2009 8:05 AM
Tonight Palin officially resigned. Good luck, Sarah! We love you, and we will miss you! The media attacked you in the way they did because they feared you.
July 26, 2009 7:53 PM
The disrespect shown by some posters is what makes Sarah Palin attractive to folks and will drive many to her.

My God, you folks are so pumped up with yourselves and you offer nothing but ridicule. You must be the folks Obama was addressing with the "clinging to guns and religion" Freudian slip. It is wearing thin with many of us.

Palin is straight forward and honest. Like it or not, folks find that refreshing when they're subjected to career politicians ad nauseam. She doesn't share your political values but she practices what she preaches and that's what scares you. Despite your claims to the contrary, I'm convinced that you and others ridiculing Palin and republicans in general here are, in fact, afraid of Palin. Afraid because she represents that which you hold in contempt.

I'm further convinced that what is really threatening to you is that she walks the walk and you are afraid others might follow.

If you want to proclaim that she was not a target of the left out of fear then knock yourself out. If you want to claim that she wasn't subjected to an unprecedented assault from the left and continues to be, then so be it. You and your fellow travelers will be the only ones fooled by that.
July 26, 2009 7:58 PM
(Wow, that was weird. We are two different Terrys commenting at almost the exact same time!)
July 26, 2009 8:04 PM
Weirddave just kicked Tony Liberal's *ss. Tony Liberal's defense is "My mom's calling me and I have to go inside - otherwise I would open up a can of whoop *ss on weirddave". Tony Liberal is nothing more than a cyberbully. Prior to running for vice-president the major media outlets were praising Sarah Palin as one of the best and most progressive of our 50 governors. Now she is the biggest threat to all things American? Sounds like we all are being played?
July 26, 2009 8:24 PM
Tony Liberal - do you have a job?? What publications do you read other than the New York Times and the New Yorker? What additional web sites do you view other than the Puffington Host and Slate? Opinions are great. They're better when you base them on facts.
July 26, 2009 8:33 PM
Go Sarah! I appreciate a person who rises above politics, She has my vote, monetary support and enthusiastic campaign volunteer.

As for those respoding to Tony the Liberal...he is an Acorn paid activist (paid by your tax dollars I'm sure) to misdirect by going on line and spreading his vile....ignore the ruse and she'll go away...not worth conservative time.
July 26, 2009 9:58 PM
WeirdDave - great points on "the one". Such an amateur...he believesw his own press..yet accomplishes nothing. But let's look at Govenor Palin's accomplishments...
- Increase state coffers
- lowered taxes
- quelled corruption and blew the whistle on her own party
- walked the walk on moral issues!!!!!
- resigned to save tax dollars and focus on state matters
July 26, 2009 10:14 PM
Well said Weird Dave! I was drifting by but had to take a moment and compliment you on your response about what a proper debate truly is. I don't know how old you are (I'm 45), but you can be on my debate team any day! Well done and well said!
July 26, 2009 10:15 PM
TO: Tony Liberal (ie. I care)

If liberals really "cared" Tony, then they wouldn't need the government to tell them how much to give. Instead, they would give from their heart. The government is ONLY necessary for those who DON'T care, and thus would otherwise NOT give.

Since I live by my compassionate conservative principles (small government, large charities), I give my extra dollars to private entities. Do YOU live by your liberal principles Tony (big government) . how much EXTRA money did you send the IRS this year? If the answer is none, then you're not putting YOUR money where your mouth is, you're putting MY money where your mouth is.

Why is it SO easy for Liberals to be sanctimonious with MY money, but themselves don't give THEIR extra money to the very thing they espouse is the answer . the government?
July 27, 2009 8:40 AM
The NY Times does not regard Mrs. Palin as irrelevant:

Sarah's Ghoulish Carousel
Despite putting out a proclamation in 2008 to plan ahead for health care decisions, Sarah Palin has managed to hijack the health care debate from President Obama with one catchy phrase.

She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.

Sarahcuda knows, from her brush with Barry on the campaign trail, that he is vulnerable on matters that demand a visceral and muscular response rather than a logical and book-learned one. Mr. Obama was charming and informed at his town hall in Montana on Friday, but he's going to need some sustained passion, a clear plan and a narrative as gripping as Palin's I-see-dead-people scenario.

She has successfully caricatured the White House health care effort, making it sound like the plot of the 1976 sci-fi movie "Logan's Run," about a post-apocalyptic society with limited resources where you can live only until age 30, when you must take part in an extermination ceremony called "Carousel" or flee the city.

Painting the Giacometti-esque Emanuel as a creepy Dr. Death, Palin attacked him on her Facebook page a week ago, complaining that his "Orwellian thinking" could lead to a "death panel" with bureaucrats deciding whether to pull the plug on less hardy Americans.

But, much to Sarah's delight, he [Dr. Emanuel, a White House health care adviser] also conceded to The Washington Times that his "thinking has evolved" on the "very vexing" issue of deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't.

"When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care," he told the paper, adding that he now feels that if we get rid of expensive "unnecessary care" that "we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases."

A few cases? Sounds like another Facebook entry for Sarah.
August 16, 2009 6:59 AM
I don't know whether this story is true or not, but like my grandpa said, "If it ain't true it oughta be!"

By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan fisherman

The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.

1 - Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's Corrupt Bastards Club (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in state housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing 'la la la la' (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. But while you're thinking, I'll continue.

2 - Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the giant oil companies here. So, she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called ACES. Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, *Don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.* They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3 - The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of state requests for federal funding for projects, known as pork. She went through the list, took 85 percent of them and placed them in the when-hell-freezes-over stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the state vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her state-provided security force (never mentioning-I imagine-that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4 - Now, even with her much-ridiculed gosh and golly mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

5 - For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the courthouse. Alaska won again.

6 - President Obama wants the nation to be on 25 percent renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50 percent renewables by 2025. We are already at 25 percent. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.

By the way, she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
August 27, 2009 5:29 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...