Beam Me Up, Sarah: William Shatner Reads Palin's Exit Speech

Sarah Palin still hasn't announced what she will do now that she's no longer the governor of Alaska. Will she run for office? Host a TV show? Write a book? Take rifle and chopper to the skies in order to defend fellow Alaskans from the growing wolf threat? Who knows! Maybe she's missed her calling entirely and, rather than politics, her future lies in poetry—and maybe, if we're lucky, a partnership with the former Captain Kirk. 

William Shatner, hero of my youth, master of spoken-word weirdness, makes the case that Palin is a poet who didn't know it by reading a selection from her recent farewell speech:
 

Keep in mind that this an actual, unedited passage from her speech. Shatner flubs a word or two right around the bit about "ice fogged frigid beauty," but otherwise, this is lifted verbatim. Students of Washington are used to politicians who don't make sense, but this is rather more brazen than is typical. I think I have to agree with Gawker's Alex Pareene: Palin is growing steadily more incoherent as we watch. 

Still, there may be an upside: With luck, the discovery of her lyrical talents will end Palin's terrifying political career and usher in the happy day when aimless lit majors can spend four years puzzling over her "verbiage" in order to turn out papers with titles like "Gertrude Stein and Robert Frost: Sarah Palin's Poetic Lineage." 

Previously, I argued that Palin could be understood as a product of ambition, incoherence, and paranoia. In 2006, Tim Cavanaugh looked at how  Star Trek helped create fan culture. And in May, I reviewed this year's Star Trek reboot.
 
UPDATE: Took down the broken YouTube version, reposted as a Hulu clip. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "brotherben | July 28, 2009, 10:05am | #

    Speaking of stupid voters, can we get a new Palin thread? Please?"


    My power is making me all giddy.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    That was brilliant.

  • EJM||

    Sarah Palin still hasn't announced what she will do now that she's no longer the governor of Alaska. Will she run for office? Host a TV show? Write a book?

    Become a syndicated talk-radio host, perhaps?

  • ||

    I do agree with Mr. Malone. That was just lovely.

  • Mike M.||

    Palin is definitely running for President, there's no doubt about it. Personally, I don't think she'll even get the Republican nomination in the end. She simply isn't electable on a national level.

    But when it comes to ambition, incoherence, and paranoia, she has nothing on the guy currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • ||

    Given the whole Alaska angle, shouldn't it be Frakes doing this?

    Oh, and the new Trek sucked.

  • ||

    Holy shit, is that really her speech?

    MR. TAMBOURINE MAAAAAANNNNN

  • ||

    Brilliant. Whoever put "Sarah Palin speech" and "William Shatner" together deserves a big ol' hug.

  • ||

    "Still, there may be an upside: With luck, the discovery of her lyrical talents will end Palin's terrifying political career"

    I guess my only question would be directed at Peter.

    Who the fuck do you think you are that someone whose political views differ from yours should be shut down? Fuck you.

  • hotsauce||

    Hate to piss on the parade, but that was just OK. Better than the dancing wedding party, though. That really blows.

  • Denny Crane||

    Denny Crane

  • dhex||

    i know, right? i feel the same way about people who act all huffy towards the castros.

  • ||

    This was almost as good as Shatner's Mark Antony soliloquy rap at the end of Free Enterprise.

    "This was man...this was a man..."

  • ||

    Yeah, because Palin's Alaska was just like Cuba.

  • ||

    But go ahead and dance with the Leftist machine. They'll never come after the throats of the Libertarians.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    EAP is rendering his name moot. Yo, EAP, the point is that you outlined a principle of action, and someone called you on it. you cannot now distinguish on the facts.

  • ||

    First they came for Sarah Palin, but I said nothing.

  • ||

    That was friggin' awesome. And I now know Sarah's secret plan. She intends to be the successor to all things Shat.

  • Joel||

    That was...simply...

  • Joe Kristan||

    Nice job trying to piss all over the only national candidate for 2012 with remotely libertarian leanings. Maybe you're looking forward to the Obama-Huckabee throwdown?

  • ||

    I think we can find a better candidate than Palin, and I'm not one of those that think she's as idiotic as she sometimes comes across. That said, this was very funny. I love Conan. And the Shat.

  • ||

    So, now Palin's a libertarian? Is it because of what she says? Or is it because of the things she did while she held office at the local and state level?

  • alan||

    So this is what happened when I flipped the channel. Conan opened his monologue with a Palin joke, and it looked to me that he was going to go back to that blooded out turnip. Sick of Palin, sick of everything about Palin, but man, Shatner! Okay, since the great Shatner has spoken, No más Palin!

  • ||

    Nice job trying to piss all over the only national candidate for 2012 with remotely libertarian leanings.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Even if this were true, she's a fucking mess. Why the fuck should libertarians hitch their wagon to another basket case who'll make them look stupid? They do that enough as it is.

    I still cannot wrap my head around the cult of Sarah Palin.

  • Mike M.||

    Nice job trying to piss all over the only national candidate for 2012 with remotely libertarian leanings. Maybe you're looking forward to the Obama-Huckabee throwdown?

    2012 is still a long way away, and a lot of things will change between now and then.

    Personally, I'd like to learn more about Tim Pawlenty. I don't know much at all about the guy, but I do know this: anyone who can get elected governor in Minnesota can't possibly be a simple far right wing zealot.

  • alan||

    BTW, if any of you caught the duet Shatner did with Ben Folds a decade ago, that was my buddy Eddie on the drums.

  • ||

    "I still cannot wrap my head around the cult of Sarah Palin."

    Which one? The morons that think she should be prfesident or the morons like Peter who are obsessed with her for no good reason.

    PS to TAO at 1:17 pm: I'm not certain what you mean.

  • ||

    Palin's most recent speeches have been like listening to Forrest Gump read a Mamet screenplay.

  • Mike in PA||

    I still cannot wrap my head around the cult of Sarah Palin.

    I know. And there are many, many like you. Let me try again...

    There is a HUGE segment of America that is sick and tired of lawyers being in charge of everything. She appeals to the sense of someone who was called to duty instead of someone who aspires to power. Whether or not she has her own aspirations now is irrelevant. She's seen as the next door neighbor who's had plenty of normal issues to deal with and the more the elite choose to denigrate her, the more she gets romanticized by these folks.

    I don't particularly like all of her politics, but just because she doesn't play well on TV, doesn't mean she's stupid. I like her because she's 180 degrees different than almost every other politician.

    p.s. I really doubt the 2012 theory. Presidential campaign may be in the future at some point, but right now she'll do just fine keeping the fires of middle America alive.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    EAP,

    You said:

    Who the fuck do you think you are that someone whose political views differ from yours should be shut down? Fuck you.



    Thereby illuminating (implicitly) a principle that it is wrong to "shut down" "someone whose political views differ from yours". dhex offered Castro as a counterpoint to that principle, and you wanted to distinguish on the facts.

    In other words, your cry about "shutting down the different" is only a principle when you want it to be, and isn't when you don't.

  • ¢||

    anyone who can get elected governor in Minnesota can't possibly be a simple far right wing zealot.

    No, you have to be an ineffectual "law and order" Democrat with a decorative R by your name. Best of all possible worlds!

    I still cannot wrap my head around the cult of Sarah Palin.

    She's the only prominent politician who's un-professional-politician-like. It's not a mystery.

  • Les||

    Who the fuck do you think you are that someone whose political views differ from yours should be shut down? Fuck you.

    She shouldn't be shut down because her political views are different from anyone's in particular. She should be shut down because she's demonstrably a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar.

    I like her because she's 180 degrees different than almost every other politician.

    Seeing as how she's a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar, how is she different than almost every other politician?

  • ||

    Is there a Shorter TAO out there because I still don't get your point.

    I shut down dhex with facts?

    or

    Principles are principles and facts are facts and never the twain shall meet?

  • Dave||

    Who sent in all the right wingers?

    Seriously, Sarah Palin is IN FACT stupid, and she generally appeals to stupid people, like all the crazy birthers who think Obama isn't an American.

  • ||

    "She should be shut down because she's demonstrably a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar."

    I really don't follow her or her career (hence my name), so can you cite some examples of this?

  • ||

    "She should be shut down because she's demonstrably a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar."

    "Barack Obama should be shut down because he's demonstrably a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar."

  • ktc2||

    Palin's "appeal" is simple.

    1) She appeals to redneck hillbillies who are sick of all those book learned city slickers and want someone as common folk and unintelligent as they are.

    2) She appeals to christian fundamentalist nuts because of her continuous beating of the Christian values drum and the fact that she didn't abort a child with disabilities.

    That's about it, but that's probably most of the Republican base at this point.

  • ||

    Everyone, please accept my sincerest apologies for requesting another Palin thread.

    Most Sincerely, ben

  • ||

    She's the only prominent politician who's un-professional-politician-like.

    She is? What does that even mean?

  • Les||

    I really don't follow her or her career (hence my name), so can you cite some examples of this?

    Andrew Sullivan has a good list here:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html

    Among them:

    Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

    Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

    Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

    Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

    "Barack Obama should be shut down because he's demonstrably a willfully ignorant, arrogant liar."

    Absolutely true. Only a reflexive partisan would suggest that the leaders and stars of both political parties aren't ignorant, arrogant liars.

  • JB||

    Compared to the disaster that is our first Affirmative Action President, could the first Poet President be any worse?

  • ||

    "Nice job trying to piss all over the only national candidate for 2012 with remotely libertarian leanings. Maybe you're looking forward to the Obama-Huckabee throwdown?"

    She's too socially conservative and too much of a pro-Israel war hawk to be a libertarian. I sure hope Republicans aren't stupid enough to nominate her in 2012. If they do, the Republican Party will show what a joke it is and will pretty much seal their doom.

  • ||

    "Compared to the disaster that is our first Affirmative Action President, could the first Poet President be any worse?"

    We need a candidate who is economically literate who can undo the damage that Obama is going to do and Palin just doesn't fill that bill.

  • ||

    Libertarians should see a Palin presidential run in 2012 vs Obama as their biggest wet dream. Run a true libertarian that is intelligent, a good speaker, and is presentable to the masses. Hammer away at what this country was founded upon. Small government, self reliance, independence, common sense. The voters might just be ready for a government that does a lot less wealth redistribution and nanny stating.

  • ||

    Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.



    The others may be reasonable, but this one seems overly tendentious to call it a lie. She did get an agreement signed to build the pipeline, after a bidding process that was considerably more open than the one under her predecessor. That it takes a long time to actually break ground because of studies, permits, assembling the funding, etc. is a fact of government construction. All of those things are part of the (unfortunately long planning) process; quibbling about whether it "began" or not starts getting a little ridiculous.

    Unless she used that phrase "shovel-ready," which was thrown around a lot with the stimulus, I'd be hard pressed to call it a lie. Worth pointing out how long it takes until ground is actually broken, but it doesn't seem worse than any alternatives for pipeline construction; indeed, the process was advanced over the delays that had happened for years.

    Including "lies" like that on a list makes me more inclined to doubt the entire list's veracity.

    You might as well say that "drill now" was always a lie because of the years of exploration and verification that goes into any land where a bid has been made before drilling actually began. Actually, Democrats and environmentalists did sometimes bring that up in claiming that companies weren't using all the land that they had bid on yet.

  • ||

    Ahoy!

    All you have to know about Sarah Palin is that Joe Biden's, JOE BIDEN, strategy during the debate was too not come off as uppity and intellectually superior to her.

  • ||

    Andrew Sullivan has a good list here:



    Difficult for me to trust Andrew Sullivan considering how he's a "birther" when it comes to Palin, and spread a bunch of other ridiculous lies about her, such as claims about abstinence-only education that weren't true.

    I suppose that's not exactly fair on my part, but since I have investigated separately quite a few of the charges that Sullivan made about her and found them contradicted by the facts (including contemporaneous and present day reporting in a wide variety of Alaska papers), I can't really trust him any more than I can trust a "birther" about Obama.

  • ||

    "Compared to the disaster that is our first Affirmative Action President, could the first Poet President be any worse?"

    All Affirmative Action office-holders suck. Take Nancy Pelosi, for instance.

  • ||

    And soon to be justice Sonia Sotomayor.

  • ||

    I will add that down here, one of the republican's biggest voting blocks is the southern baptists. The baptists I know personally are all about hard work, personal responsibility, lower taxes and less government intrusion. That's why they align with the GOP.

  • Warty||

    She is? What does that even mean?

    It means she's as dumb as the rest of us.

  • Les||

    Libertarians should see a Palin presidential run in 2012 vs Obama as their biggest wet dream. Run a true libertarian that is intelligent, a good speaker, and is presentable to the masses.

    I don't understand, Palin is none of those things. Which "true libertarian" are you talking about?

    John,

    Palin lied when she was introduced to the world at the Republican Convention and said she said, "Thanks, but no thanks," to the Bridge to Nowhere.

    There are about 30 lies listed on Sullivan's page. If he's wrong on 75% of them (and he's not, most of them are well documented), then she's still a big, fat liar.

  • Mike in PA||

    ktc2 said Palin's "appeal" is simple.

    It's funny how you feel you must insult what you do not understand. Does that make you feel superior?

    I am neither a redneck hillbilly or a Christian. I am educated and choose to live in a small PA town because of the atmosphere. Freedom is a premium here.

    sick of all those book learned city slickers

    Do you mean the ones that have been in charge of taking our liberties over the past 100 years? Ok, yes. I'm sick of them. Common sense cannot be learned through a book. Especially not through law school. Commons sense is absent there.

    Can't you just be willfully ignorant of her appeal instead of being arrogant about it?

  • ||

    Why should I believe that Palin is even remotely libertarian? Just because she claims to be for "small government"? Anybody can say that.

    The Repubs said it a lot in the '90s. But what did they actually DO as soon as they came to power? C'mon, people, your attention span can't be that short.

  • ||

    "The baptists I know personally are all about hard work, personal responsibility, lower taxes and less government intrusion."

    Except for when it comes to using the government to coerce their moral values on others.

  • ||

    les, I was suggesting a third party candidate that counters all things Obama and appeals to the pro-Palin small government types on the right that may be looking for a candidate that is smarter than a fifth grader.

  • Les||

    The baptists I know personally are all about hard work, personal responsibility, lower taxes and less government intrusion. That's why they align with the GOP.

    I've said it before and I must again. If you claim to be for less government intrusion and personal responsibility while you support the drug war, and think homosexuality should be illegal, and support eliminating due process for people the government suspects of terrorism, and warrantless wiretaps, and invading countries that pose no threat to us while spending untold billions on a massive military bureaucracy, the only people who will take you seriously are Republicans.

  • alan||

    Libertarians should see a Palin presidential run in 2012 vs Obama as their biggest wet dream. Run a true libertarian that is intelligent, a good speaker, and is presentable to the masses. Hammer away at what this country was founded upon. Small government, self reliance, independence, common sense. The voters might just be ready for a government that does a lot less wealth redistribution and nanny stating.

    That is true. Obama versus Palin in the donkey-elephant contest could be a big boost for the third parties. When the reporters ask the LP candidate, how can you possibly get anything done without a single ally in the House and the Senate, he or she could tell them, "What makes you think I want to get anything done? Gridlock and the power of the veto, that is all I need to accomplish what I set out to do."

  • Les||

    I see what you're saying, brotherben, and I do like the idea. But, honestly, I think it's impossible to be a "pro-Palin small government type."

  • ||

    Hey, all I'm saying is that libertarians can sit back and keep losing rights and keep giving money to the govt and fielding candidates that go nowhere. They could also take a realistic look into how the machine works and run someone that, while not compromising their core beliefs, presents the libertarian platform in a palatable and popular way.

    Like Dr. Phil says, "would you rather be right, or happy?"

  • Mike in PA||

    But, honestly, I think it's impossible to be a "pro-Palin small government type."

    Depends on the issue...

    I can't see her infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. She'd be pretty good against over-reaching environmental protections as well.

  • Bob||

    Here's a Hulu link since the YouTube got taken down: http://www.hulu.com/embed/vKFN63C8GAflZB1YH2fV0w

  • ||

    There are, I believe, an awful lot of republican voters that are very libertarian in their beliefs. They feel compelled to vot. They don't see a viable candidate other than the GOP's flavor of the month. If you give them a candidate that fits most of their needs, they will vote libertarian. But you have to sell your product. You can't get enough votes just pointing out the flaws in the opposition.

  • ||

    Suderman is the new Dave Weigel. The leftist who pretends to be the Libertarian. The guy who always has an excuse to explain why no matter how bad the Dems are the Republicans are worse.

    It is not surprising that he would describe Palin's political career as "terrifying". I think we have an empty suit in the Whitehouse whose career is a lot more terrifying than Palin's. Ultimately, all Palin has ever done is lose a national election and win elections in places people like Suderman and his ilk would never live. But she is "terrifying". Cap and Theft and Socialized Medicine and the $700 billion stimulus are hardly worth mentioning. But Palin is terrifying. Yeah Peter we know the routine.

  • ||

    "Libertarians should see a Palin presidential run in 2012 vs Obama as their biggest wet dream. Run a true libertarian that is intelligent, a good speaker, and is presentable to the masses. Hammer away at what this country was founded upon. Small government, self reliance, independence, common sense. The voters might just be ready for a government that does a lot less wealth redistribution and nanny stating."

    First, who is your idea for Libertarian? Second, can you have him or her run a campaign where no movement liberarians show up at his campaign stops? Without that he is toast. Also, sadly, the war on drugs outside of pot is very popular. The moment your guy admitted that he planed to legalize heroin once in office, his hopes of cracking double digits would be over.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Suderman is the new Dave Weigel."

    Why does Reason hire liberal shills like Weigel and Suderman? I really don't get it. Whenever I read a Suderman piece, it comes off like something from the UW Madison Badger-Herald.

  • The Gobbler||

    Or a Ess Eff Chronicle Mark Morford column when it's Weigel.

  • ||

    Ahh i see NBC is throwing down some CEO censorship, since we can't see our content, then why don't we use this thread to discuss the future of legal entities in our society.

  • Les||

    Why does Reason hire liberal shills like Weigel and Suderman?

    Libertarians are supposed to be liberal. They're actually more liberal than Democrats. Criticizing an ignorant, dishonest Republican doesn't make one a Democrat, or vice versa.

    Suderman is the new Dave Weigel. The leftist who pretends to be the Libertarian. The guy who always has an excuse to explain why no matter how bad the Dems are the Republicans are worse.

    Could you please link to evidence Suderman's "leftist" beliefs? And please one where he asserts that Republicans are worse than Democrats?

    You don't really think that criticizing Republicans automatically means one prefers Democrats, do you?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    yeah, John, making fun of one of your side's dumber politicians does not a shill make. Oh, and I am sure you'll launch into some inane diatribe about TEH LIBRUL MEDIAS, but I got my fill of that particular load from 2001-2008.

  • alan||

    Like Dr. Phil says, "would you rather be right, or happy?"

    Dr. Phil only says that to justify a guy being a pussy whupped wuss, though. When guys lower their standards of domestic assholeness, it puts pressure on the rest of us to do likewise. He is the enemy. What good can come out of following his advice?

  • ||

    Man, if Shatner were American, I'd vote for him in 2012.

  • Mike M.||

    Libertarians are supposed to be liberal. They're actually more liberal than Democrats.

    On some issues, yes, but it's ridiculous to say this as a blanket statement.

    Articles criticizing Republicans are fine, but genuine libertarians who believe in limited government spend the bulk of their time focusing in like a laser on the party that is actually in power, and what they're trying to do with that power.

    This is especially true when that party has almost total and absolute power over the government, like the Democrats do now.

  • Travis||

    Geez, Barack Obama is 180 degrees from Palin. Barack Obama is 179 degrees away from Libertarian. That puts Palin pretty close to this sector of the spectrum. Lets just hang back and see where this pig is going.

  • ||

    Man, if Shatner were American, I'd vote for him in 2012.

    Thank you, ProL. Someone understands what this thread should really be about.

    Dude, 2012 is a ways off. Perhaps Urkobold could troll the Shat into switching teams?

  • Cal Lipigian||

    Barack Obama is 180 degrees from Palin. Barack Obama is 179 degrees away from Libertarian.

    And if we lived in Flatland, that would put libertarians close to Palin. In the real 3-D world, not necessarily.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Articles criticizing Republicans are fine, but genuine libertarians who believe in limited government spend the bulk of their time focusing in like a laser on the party that is actually in power, and what they're trying to do with that power."

    Thanks!

  • ||

    Palin lied when she was introduced to the world at the Republican Convention and said she said, "Thanks, but no thanks," to the Bridge to Nowhere.

    She was for it before she was against it. That's a problem for the Dems, now?

    I do find it amusing that any defender of the Parsin' President gets all formalistic when the subject is what Sarah Palin might have said.

    And Sullivan? Sorry, but after his utterly disgraceful hysterics over Trig Palin's birth and parentage, I don't care what he says, about anything.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I second the gobbler's thanks. But would add that on second thought, if writing hit-pieces on Palin gets Suderman's liberal chicas wet, I suppose really shouldn't blame him.

  • hmm||

    The willingness to follow the flock on the Palin bashing is wearing a little thin. I don't get pointing out every misstep when, at this point, she isn't even consequential in politics. Even if she did matter at this point 90% of the commentary and articles seem to be less about her politics and more about her mannerisms. I get the "HA HA" high school running joke thing, but at some point the joke is just fucking retarded and no longer funny and becomes malicious and pointless.

    I get the feeling this as a thinly veiled "look at the stupid redneck, or stupid woman" bullshit many on the left and right, especially the academic fucktards, put forth. This alone tends to piss me off as a pickup owning redneck who has as many friends that kill their dinner and only have a high school education as college educated friends who fly a desk. Or worse the attractive female aspect of it, which I'm not even going to entertain for the sake of my blood pressure. With only addressing her mannerisms I'm having a hard time coming up with any other reason for the silly articles.

    Her politics are, well goofy at times and I don't agree with a lot of the finer points or application.(the broader points are appealing in some areas)It's hard to figure out what exactly her politics are to begin with since she often doesn't convey them well and wading through article after article of, "OMG SHE IS STOOPID" doesn't make it any easier and barely addresses the point of her not conveying her ideas.

    How about this. For every dipshit, "OMG U R TARD" article you take some time and run something criticizing her for her political, economic, or social beliefs. Since you obviously hold your own intellect in higher regard than hers why not man up and take her to task on issues instead of solely on personality. There are plenty of libertarian based issues that conflict with her views. The high school bullshit and rehashed late night comedy mentality is truly getting old. is old.

    The Shattner thing was meh. I honestly find nothing wrong with that portion of her speech. If you've ever spent anytime in the wilderness, hiking, or outdoors away from your cell phone it isn't hard to understand what she is talking about.

    Per the Ambition, Incoherence, and Paranoia article. I think I mentioned this in the comments for this article, but will do it here. I find it pretty rich that someone proclaiming even a remotely libertarian philosophy would bash ambition a basis for free markets. Or even funnier mention Paranoia. Have you looked at the head lines rolling through reason? I agree with almost all of them, but the tinge of "OMG GOVERMENT" or "OMG COP" is just a little paranoid in nature. Even if it is justified to some degree. When pointing out how fucked up someone else is it's a good idea to not point out the things similar, or associated with yourself.

    For the record I'm ambitious, paranoid, and on occasion incoherent. I'm pretty proud and comfortable with the first two, the latter is a function of it not being easy to keep this much stupid under wraps at all times.

    This is rapidly moving into birther or 9/11 tard territory if it isn't already there.

  • Travis||

    I didn't realize that the political spectrum was a sphere. Are you for gov't intervention into our daily lives, or are you against it? Palin is a hell of a lot closer to how I believe than ANYONE in Washington right now. The Repubs are good on guns and the Constitution. As long as you aren't gay or otherwise threaten their world view. The Dems are good when it comes to expanding their world view, unless your world view contains guns or profit. Let Palin form some solid platforms after the media circus dies down. She has great potential to land over here by us...

  • ||

    Ahoy!

    Travis, that has to be the funniest post the day!

    Huzzah sir, huzzah!

  • ||

    "This is rapidly moving into birther or 9/11 tard territory if it isn't already there."

    Oh, it's there. It's there.

  • ||

    That is a fabulous post HMM. That sums up exactly why I defend Palin and loath most of her critics.

  • ||

    Yeah, I wouldn't cite Sullivan on anything. His credibility disappeared long, long ago.

    Anyway, back to the point of this thread: Since Kirk was born in Iowa, and Shatner is the One True Kirk, then, for Constitutional purposes, Shatner is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    If that reasoning doesn't work, then we should annex or purchase Quebec, which should convert Shatner's allegedly foreign birth into an American one.

  • Les||

    Articles criticizing Republicans are fine, but genuine libertarians who believe in limited government spend the bulk of their time focusing in like a laser on the party that is actually in power, and what they're trying to do with that power.

    It would have been great if a lot of folks here had done that during the Bush administration.

  • ||

    "I didn't realize that the political spectrum was a sphere. Are you for gov't intervention into our daily lives, or are you against it?"

    But you are thinking of politics as a two dimensional X and Y axis with government intervention on the X axis and personal freedom on the Y axis. By that calculution, libertarians ought to like Palin. But, there is a third Z axis, culture. Culturally, the libertarians who right for reason are much more like the nanny state liberal beltway Dems than they are Palin. It is all about culture. Most reasonoids love the "idea" of owning a gun and living out away from the big city and doing your own thing. But they can't stand the reality of the people who actually do that kind of thing.

  • MNG||

    Palin + Shatner=300 posts!

  • ||

    Reason was pro-Bush?

  • MNG||

    It's true John, the writers of Reason probably go to parties where gay people are present, read books that don't affirm Jesus as savior directly enough, and listen to non-gospel radio stations. In a word, these people are cosmotarians, and deserve your scorn.

  • MNG||

    Look, any poster who alludes that Reason gave Bush a pass is either lying, stupid or has been kept, much like the gimp in pulp fiction, in a box in a redneck gun dealer's basement and used only for deviant sex for the past nine years.

  • ||

    "It's true John, the writers of Reason probably go to parties where gay people are present, read books that don't affirm Jesus as savior directly enough, and listen to non-gospel radio stations. In a word, these people are cosmotarians, and deserve your scorn."

    Yes because there are no gay people outside of a few big cities and everyone who doesn't live in a select few places is a bible thumping believer who never reads anything but the scripture.

    Yeah, people in places like Anchorage and Duluth and Minot just write books, fly planes, do open heart surgery and about a million other things you will never do. Do you realize what an ignorant narrow minded hick you sound like? Thank you for proving my point.

  • Travis||

    The culture axis is the only axis. Call it foreign or domestic policy, call it economics, call it Sally for all I care. It all boils down to world view and what you believe a central gov't role should be in it. The part of that axis that Liberty is sitting on is within reach of Palin. Obama and the like would need a plane ticket to find it.

  • ||

    Really MNG are you so stupid as to believe that there are no gay people out in America? Do you honestly think that no one outside of wherever Reason's staff live ever reads or is anything but an evangelical? Are you that stupid and prejudiced or just trolling?

  • SIV||

    Why the fuck should libertarians hitch their wagon to another basket case who'll make them look stupid? They do that enough as it is.


    To win?

  • ||

    If God truly had a sense of humor, Palin would win in 2012 and actually cut the size and scope of government. I can't imagine anything that would make the Reason staff more miserable.

  • dhex||

    i'll never understand this whole "palin is vaguely libertarian" thing. maybe it's a lifestyle libertarian thing, i.e. she owns guns?

  • ||

    "It would have been great if a lot of folks here had done that during the Bush administration."

    Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail,

    You must be new around here, please return to whatever corner of the internet you came from. In the words of a great man "Yo Les, shut the fuck up"

  • Travis||

    The country is full of jokers who think the gov is there to do something for them that they can do for themselves. Until that changes, true Libertarian candidates don't have a chance in a national election. The fact is, we need a group of repubs to stand up and embrace limited gov't. All of it. Cut taxes, open the market, treat homosexuals as people, not political cannon fodder, and get the hell away from my gun. They need to leave the neocons and evangelicals behind. I believe this might be where Palin comes in. Maybe. Ride the pig man, ride the pig.

  • Travis||

    what the fuck is a lifestyle libertarian?

  • ||

    "I can't imagine anything that would make the Reason staff more miserable."

    But Suderman would continue 'baiting with her picture.

  • ||

    I wouldn't be surprised if Palin had some libertarian streaks in her politics, but that doesn't make her a libertarian. Sanford was the best hope for the GOP running someone with a real libertarian position on a number of issues, but there may be others out there to take his place.

    I'm confident that the country will hunger for an anti-government candidate in 2012, and I hope Palin isn't the best face for that viewpoint come nomination time.

  • Xeones||

    Actually, Zero, you've conflated my "Yo, fuck Les" meme with Warty's "Shut the fuck up, Les" (apologies to Les, it's just that you were handy).

    For accuracy, you should have said, "In the words of a great man (and also Warty)..."

  • ||

    "i'll never understand this whole "palin is vaguely libertarian" thing. maybe it's a lifestyle libertarian thing, i.e. she owns guns?"

    She took on the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska. She is very pro development and business. As a governor she actually vetoed spending. She certanly talks well on small government. But it is still unclear. It is not like she dismantled the state of Alaska or something (although she did veto a lot of spending bills and make the legislature give up some goodies).

  • hmm||

    I heard Palin and Shattner are friends of Crowley and both hate Harvard professors.

  • ||

    Here's President Shatner's inaugural address (first term):

    Politics. . .the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Administration Shatner. Its four-year mission: to explore strange new policies; to cut out a few taxes and a few regulations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.

  • Travis||

    Maybe they can all get together at the WH for a beer. Maybe a Sam Adams.

  • hmm||

    HAHA

    NBC nuked the Youtube link.


    Le Fail.

  • hmm||

    The Alaskan redneck probably makes her own out of fish guts and moose crap. I don't think Canadians can legally drink beer that isn't brewed in Canada and tastes like shit.

  • ||

    "Sanford was the best hope for the GOP running someone with a real libertarian position on a number of issues, but there may be others out there to take his place."

    Now there is a guy who is worthy of distain. "Ah I am just going to disapear for a weekend while I go to Argintina to bang my kind of ugly Argintine girlfriend. No one should miss me right?" Thank God Stanford showed himself to be a freak before he got nominated.

  • ||

    Sarah Palin is quite obviously a moron and her ascension to the VP nomination a national embarrassment only slightly less painful than the preceding 8 years of Republican rule in this country.

    John, how many people have to be tortured before you realize that the GOP and libertarianism have anything to do with each other, except a little bit of rhetoric?

  • hmm||

    Sarah Palin is quite obviously a moron and her ascension to the VP nomination a national embarrassment only slightly less painful than the preceding 8 years of Republican rule in this country.



    I was thinking the same thing about Biden. The added bonus being he's proving me right damn near everyday.

  • ||

    "John, how many people have to be tortured before you realize that the GOP and libertarianism have anything to do with each other, except a little bit of rhetoric?"


    Maybe they should vote for our current President who shut down GUITMO, ended rendition, and all agressive interogation practices as soon as he took the Oath of Office. At this point Tony, if you are an Obama supporter, you are a supporter of indefinite detention and "agressive interogation techniques" whatever those are.

    All I can say is welcome to the club.

  • ||

    The GOP sucks ass in a variety of ways, but at least most Republicans think that government should have some limits.

  • ||

    The Obamabots like Tony are reduced to one of two responses to anything

    1. Bush tortured people
    2. Bitch Bitch Whine Whine.

  • mng||

    Pro L
    I respectfully dissent. If the subject is law enforcement powers or defense spending, then its the GOP that knows few limits, if the subject is entitlements, then it is the Dems who seem to know few limits. It's really pick your poison thing.

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up Tony.

  • MNG||

    I dunno John, can I mention that Bush et al., weren't exactly small government science heroes?

  • ||

    "Pro L
    I respectfully dissent. If the subject is law enforcement powers or defense spending, then its the GOP that knows few limits,"

    Please give some examples of either President Clinton or President Obamasiah reducing the law enforcement powers of the federal government? I sure don't see any.

  • hmm||

    The GOP sucks ass in a variety of ways, but at least most Republicans think that government should have some limits.

    Of course, thinking and doing are two completely different things.

  • ||

    "I dunno John, can I mention that Bush et al., weren't exactly small government science heroes?"


    Sure as long as it is not offered as an excuse for the obamasiah's behavior go ahead.

  • ||

    hmm,

    I'm not endorsing the GOP; I'm just noting that they at least have some slight agreement with the statement, "Government should have limits."

  • MNG||

    Well, for one thing of the bat the Clinton justice administration did not target producers of porn as much as W did.

  • ||

    And I'm thinking more about the voters than the leaders, at that.

  • ||

    "Well, for one thing of the bat the Clinton justice administration did not target producers of porn as much as W did."


    That is true. But the Clinton Justice Department also went after gun owners big time. Both parties use DOJ to pick on people they don't like.

  • MNG||

    Pro
    Again, that's only true in some areas.

    Let me give you a judicial example. Liberals jurists tend to try to expand the right of citizens to sue the government, while conservative jurists often restrict it, under the doctrine of standing. Likewise, liberals tend to read the due process clause more broadly in favor of citizens fighting a deprivation of their liberty or property than conservatives. Etc.,

  • MNG||

    Iirc Holder cut back on W's crazy anti-porn Justice Dept. crusade right away.

  • ||

    "Let me give you a judicial example. Liberals jurists tend to try to expand the right of citizens to sue the government, while conservative jurists often restrict it, under the doctrine of standing. Likewise, liberals tend to read the due process clause more broadly in favor of citizens fighting a deprivation of their liberty or property than conservatives. Etc.,"

    Liberal justices also are more likely not to recognize property rights and allow the government to seize and regulate people's property. Liberal justices also are more likly to restrict people's right to political speech in the form of campaign donations or even making documentaries about politicians leading up to an election.

  • ||

    "Iirc Holder cut back on W's crazy anti-porn Justice Dept. crusade right away."

    And started his own crusades against now disfavored groups.

  • MNG||

    Dem voters are even better than their leaders. They favor marijuana decriminalization more than GOP voters, open access to porn more, rights of the accused more, reduced defense spending and war powers, etc.,

  • MNG||

    "Liberal justices also are more likely not to recognize property rights and allow the government to seize and regulate people's property."

    Like assett forfeiture cases?

  • MNG||

    "And started his own crusades against now disfavored groups."

    Er, such as?

    I mean, everyone looks at porn. Thats pretty broad group, a lot of liberty interests threatened right there...

  • ||

    "Like assett forfeiture cases?"

    I am unware of any judges liberal or conservative who are doing much about asse forfeiture cases. In fact, Justice Scalia has written pretty critical things about them.

    But, liberals will allow the government to condem your property as blighted and then force you to sell it to the megacorp who wants to build a plant there. All of course because they care so much about the little guy.

    "Er, such as?"

    The stop guns going south to Mexico farce for one. Everyone knows the Mexican drug gangs don't depend on US gun shows to get their guns. Yet, Holder and DOJ pretend they do as a way to go after gun owners.

    I don't agree with the GOP's wierdo obsession with porn anymore than you do. But my right to own a gun is a bigger deal then my right to produce porn.

  • MNG||

    Pro
    It's not that I don't see your point though. I felt sorry for McCain during the campaign because no matter what relief he came out with in response to the financial troubles the nation was going through Obama could just always say "well, yeah, me too plus I'll throw in X". The Dems, having no built in aversion to government programs, had no ceiling and McCain was stumped...

    But in areas other than spending, the Dems are just usually better. Of course, spending is pretty important.

  • MNG||

    My right to consume porn is more important than my right to consume guns. I'm just being honest.

    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZS.html

  • MNG||

    Or search and seizure cases?

    It's people's property thats being searched and seized, you know.

  • ||

    MNG,

    If Obama hadn't let them steal $700 billion for the stimulus, would stop cap and theft and leave healthcare the fuck alone, I wouldn't have much of a problem with him. I mean really. He left Gates in at DOD. He is going after the Taliban. He gave the CIA a wink and a nod to keep grabbing and torutring people when necessary. Other than his constant groveling to any world leader he meets, I really can't bitch about the guy.

  • ||

    "My right to consume porn is more important than my right to consume guns. I'm just being honest."

    Fifty years ago we had strict anti-porn laws and were generally a free country. If we had no guns, we wouldn't be for very long. So I beg to differ.

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure we were very free in 1959. If you were black, you could not even drink out the same waterfountain as whites. If you were gay, you could be fired from your job (i.e., as a school teacher). About 1% of engineers were women, abortions were illegal, and in some areas contraception was illegal. Comic books like the Watchmen or movies like the Godfather were practically off limits. McCarthyism and school prayer were the order of the day...

  • MNG||

    We are so much more free than we were 50 years ago it ain't funny. In fact, it's the realization of this fact that gets some libertarians called "cosmotarians."

  • dhex||

    "what the fuck is a lifestyle libertarian?"

    i.e. she owns guns? i mean, i dunno. people talk about her like she's a libertarian because she shot things from a helicopter. or maybe it's a masturbation thing.

    i'm as puzzled as you are, man.

    "I shut down dhex with facts?"

    you couldn't shut me down if you were the board of health and i owned a deli without a working sink.

    seriously though, your original statement was "don't be mean to people who politicate different than you! that's mean!" and when i offered an obvious counterexample (i.e. the odious castros) yer all like "oh that's not what i meant!"

    duh, of course that's not what you meant! you meant "stop picking on my sarahbiddles!" you could have saved us all precious minutes by saying that in the first place.

  • dhex||

    "She certanly talks well on small government."

    they all do. it's the gop thing. it's part of their mise-en-scene, but even more formless and useless.

  • Fuck you, Palin haters!||

    Suderman, you and that faggot Sullivan and all the other Palin hating faggots should all be raped with running chainsaws. Burn in Hell, you commie gaystapo bastards!

  • ||

    MNG-

    Do you know why, in 1959, "movies like the Godfather were practically off limits?"

    LOL!

    McCarthyism in 1959? Joe McCarthy died in May of 1957!

    LOL!

  • ||

    MNG, you present just one side of the story every time you compare how much relative freedom we have enjoyed in different points in time.

    Overall, while I do think that we enjoy slightly more liberty than 50 years ago, I do so grudgingly as big brother is so much more omni-present. You tend to think that greater equality for people of color and people of varying sexual orientations is the preeminent measure of relative freedom. There, we must part company.

    There was no Patriot Act in 1959. No Medicare. No America's Most Wanted. No EPA. No Department of Education and NO Department of Veteran Affairs. A shitload less reason to be stopped by cops while driving. The Drug War, as we know it, was yet to be. How about bank privacy? Do you think you have more today?

    You get the point.

  • GILMORE||

    Joy.

    I forgive William Shatner of all. Everything. Priceline.com, his sci-fi novels, his upstaging of Ricardo Montalban (PBUH) - everything. Thank you, Captain. Thank you.

  • hmm||

    I'm gay and sorta-libertarian (the main thing I want is for the gov't to back way the fuck down), and I like Palin a lot. she's nothing like the caricature in the media, and I don't know any other politician who is warning against "enslavement" to the gov't, which is what i'm worried about

    Andrew Sullivan's little "list of lies" helped a lot in coming around to Palin in a big way-- ten minutes and a Google search engine are all you need to demolish that piece of crap.

  • Morna||

    Travis | July 28, 2009, 4:36pm

    The country is full of jokers who think the gov is there to do something for them that they can do for themselves. Until that changes, true Libertarian candidates don't have a chance in a national election. The fact is, we need a group of repubs to stand up and embrace limited gov't. All of it. Cut taxes, open the market, treat homosexuals as people, not political cannon fodder, and get the hell away from my gun. They need to leave the neocons and evangelicals behind. I believe this might be where Palin comes in. Maybe. Ride the pig man, ride the pig.


    Travis, this was AWESOME! And I agree with you 100%, THANK YOU!

  • Jim Treacher||

    Thank goodness we have Biden instead.

  • ||

    # Enjoy Every Sandwich | July 28, 2009, 2:25pm | #
    # Why should I believe that Palin is even
    # remotely libertarian? Just because she
    # claims to be for "small government"? Anybody
    # can say that.

    # The Repubs said it a lot in the '90s. But
    # what did they actually DO as soon as they
    # came to power?

    # brotherben | July 28, 2009, 2:40pm | #

    # Hey, all I'm saying is that libertarians can
    # sit back and keep losing rights and keep
    # giving money to the govt and fielding
    # candidates that go nowhere. They could also
    # take a realistic look into how the machine
    # works and run someone that, while not
    # compromising their core beliefs, presents
    # the libertarian platform in a palatable and # popular way.

    Are you saying that you see Palin as such a person, BB? Which part do you think she does best: NOT compromise our core beliefs, or present the libertarian platform in a palatable and popular way? From where I sit, she has done neither and is capable of doing neither.

    Your argument was advanced on behalf of Bob Dole and GW Bush, by the way. In other words, those guys were described as libertarians' best shots at getting things their way.

    But, at least in the case of W, the alleged "best shot" was a mile wide of the mark. Anyone who is fooled by such rhetoric deserves what he gets.

    I'm all done even considering "marginally libertarian" or "libertarian leaning" candidates who, by virtue of their big-party machines and connections, are considered as "electable." The only way those guys and gals, so wired into their respective establishments, will ever deliver what libertarians want is by accident.

    Better to support and run a candidate that actually DOES hold libertarian beliefs and articulates them well. With the possible exception of Ron Paul -- and even then, not all of the time -- I haven't seen anyone among the GOP or Demo candidates in the past ten or twenty years, whom I would trust to take this country in a libertarian direction. And I have come to trust least those who are described by their Kool-Aid drinkers as the "last, best hope for libertarianism." As EES said above, "anyone can say that."

  • ||

    Conan was right: Shatner IS there, whenever we need him. This was clearly such a time.

    But is it just me, or does Shatner need to don a grey beard and a red peaked-cap when standing next to Conan? Oh sorry. That's the other online travel company that's big on TV. :-)

  • hmm||

    hmm | July 29, 2009, 1:27am | #
    hmm | July 29, 2009, 1:27am | #
    I'm gay and sorta-libertarian (the main thing I want is for the gov't to back way the fuck down), and I like Palin a lot. she's nothing like the caricature in the media, and I don't know any other politician who is warning against "enslavement" to the gov't, which is what i'm worried about

    Andrew Sullivan's little "list of lies" helped a lot in coming around to Palin in a big way-- ten minutes and a Google search engine are all you need to demolish that piece of crap.



    Get the fuck off my name and get your own!

  • ||

    Mr. Merritt, I had no specific person in mind. I was saying that if Palin is the gop nom in 2012 against Obama, it would be a good opportunity for Libertarians to make a move. As Libertarians, not with the GOP.

  • ||

    Sarah Palin is a complete dingbat moron. Who gives a shit what her position on anything is? Christ I expect the first thing she's propose if she ever (god forbid) acquired a national office would be to shut down all private media companies that dare criticize her. That seems to be her primary political concern after all.

    Having loony political philosophies is one thing, but choking down incompetents like Sarah Palin because of the (R) next to her name really doesn't do service to the libertarian movement, which I thought worshiped human brain power.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement