Media

In Search of the Real Sarah Palin

A review of Joe McGinniss's The Rogue

|

In an America where a whopping 66 percent of adults hold an unfavorable view of 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (according to a recent Bloomberg poll), author Joe McGinniss has done something truly remarkable. He actually makes the short-serving former Alaska governor and widely panned reality TV star a slightly more sympathetic character, at least for the regrettable time one wastes reading The Rogue, his sketchily sourced compendium of low blows and inconsistent accusations.

McGinniss, who came to prominence 40 years ago with his groundbreaking study of political marketing, The Selling of the President 1968, serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to "the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze."

As readers may recall, I'm no Palin fan myself, and I don't think there's anything wrong with unapologetic political bias, but all-consuming contempt rarely makes for good journalism. Despite his intensely close proximity to his subject—McGinniss famously rented the house adjacent to the Palin home while researching his book—he consistently fails to sift through competing versions of the same story for something approximating truth. For instance, McGinniss writes that in 1987, "whether in her professional capacity as a sports reporter or simply as a basketball groupie who'd begun to find black men attractive, Sarah linked up" with University of Michigan player Glen Rice during a college tournament in Anchorage. One unnamed "friend" (the book is jam-packed with them) says, "I can't say I know they had sex," while a different "friend" proclaims, "The thing that people remember is her freak-out, how completely crazy she got: I [expletive] a black man! She was just horrified." To his slight credit, McGinniss gave Rice a call to check these claims, but he fails to record a point-blank answer to the straightforward question of whether the player and Palin slept together. Instead, McGinniss asks, "So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?" to which Rice politely answers, "No, no, no, nothing like that. .?.?. I think the utmost of her."

More important, and beyond basic questions of facts, McGinniss fails to specify the significance of Palin's premarital sexual history (one wonders if and when male politicians will be subjected to the same examination).

He leaves no ambiguity, though, about the import of what he calls "the unanswered question" of Trig, Palin's son with Down syndrome, who was born in 2008. Untroubled by a lack of actual evidence, a small but unbowed band of Palin critics has long wondered aloud whether she is the boy's biological mother. Like all conspiracists, they insist that they are only asking questions that could be readily answered by nothing more out of the ordinary than a full data dump of Palin's obstetrical records. McGinniss approvingly quotes blogger Andrew Sullivan, who has insisted that "if Palin has lied about [giving birth to Trig], it's the most staggering, appalling deception in the history of American politics."

What exactly McGinniss thinks is "unanswered" about Trig's birth is unclear, since he avers that, unlike Sullivan and other gynecological obsessives, he absolutely believes Palin is Trig's mother: "It seemed outlandish, even indecent, to suppose that Trig might not be Sarah's child. I did not, and I don't." And then he proceeds to devote more than a dozen pages to rehashing every conceivable theory—and some inconceivable ones—that she faked the birth.
McGinniss suggests that "it would be more than unreasonable to assume" that Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, "told her that the only thing that would make her a more appealing choice [as a running mate] would be if she could somehow give birth to a Down syndrome baby before the Republican convention in September. Yet . . . later Sarah announced that that's exactly what she expected to do."

McGinniss closes out his unmoored theorizing by asserting that "perhaps the most blistering assessment" of Palin is that, even if she is telling the truth about being Trig's mother, many people in her home town of Wasilla thought she was "eminently capable" of perpetuating such a sick ruse. Of course, that's not at all a blistering assessment of Palin, but it speaks volumes about McGinniss, who elsewhere chides the ex-governor for "spewing vitriolic condemnation of anyone who challenges her" and for having "no sense of proportion, no ability to modulate her response."

Rumors abound that Palin, whose spring bus tour fizzled every bit as much as Charlie Sheen's, will be announcing by month's end whether she intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. As her genuinely awful poll numbers suggest, Palin the office-seeker would face far bigger problems than the publication of The Rogue, which may have the perverse outcome of at least momentarily expanding her fan base.

Despite the buzz and hoopla she first generated when she stepped onto the national stage, Palin was a less-than-stellar vice presidential candidate, and in a YouTube world, Katie Couric interviews are forever. Her quick retreat from the Alaska governor's mansion, which she quit after serving barely half a term, was punctuated by the most bizarre and self-pitying exit speech since Richard Nixon promised in 1962, after losing the California governor's race, that we wouldn't have him to kick around anymore. Widely discussed lapses in judgment, including a push to fire her former brother-in-law, who was a state trooper, and her disturbingly narcissistic reaction to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona raise serious questions about her capacity to govern effectively. All these and more will weigh far heavier on her aspirations than anything McGinniss fantasized about while living next door to her in Wasilla.

That's exactly as it should be.

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv and a co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America. A version of this article originally appeared at The Washington Post.

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.

272 responses to “In Search of the Real Sarah Palin

  1. For an unpopular clown, Sarah Palin certainly continues to draw significant attacks from a Democrat party with limited resources.

    1. Yeah, its funny. The Lieberals all claim they just want Sarah to go away, but they can’t stop writing about her. Truth is they probably like her deep down.

      1. She makes them feel good about themselves. She plays the role of the “other”. I always say making fun of Palin is a way for stupid people to feel smart. And what I mean by that is, for some people (not all but some) Palin has become symbolic of everything they view as inferior about this country. So when they attack her it is a way for people to affirm that they are not that but something smarter and better.

        I think maybe liberals do want her to win the Presidency because it would confirm all of their worst thoughts about America and in doing so reaffirm their sense of superiority in a way almost nothing else would. It is some twisted shit when you think about it.

        1. All political discourse has some level of S&M in it.

          1. squirrel is to dog as Palin is to Liberal…

            1. They’re all rodents as far as I’m concerned. Ha! I make funny.

        2. keep ur day [JOBZ] john cause psychotherapy obviously aint it

          1. Thank you for further making the case for registration and banning by coming in and shitting all over a thread and adding nothing to the conversation accept you imaginary language.

            1. John, sometimes I worry about you. You really ought not to let the all caps and brackets guys get to you. I would hate to read in the paper one day “Bureaucrat, Lawyer, Engineer, Veteran, Hit and Run Poster Extraordinaire Dies from Apoplexy”. Let it go.

              1. LOL. Thank you for your concern. But I won’t I promise.

            2. This is one of John’s common lines: “you’re not adding anything of substance!!!!” He also loves to accuse others of being mean when his usual response to any dissent is to go, as described below, borderline aploplexic.

              But movement conservatives are like that. They shout. If that doesn’t work they SHOUT LOUDER!!!

              1. And on cue comes MNG to further my point. What are you adding here MNG other than invective?

                1. 02 posted something of substance, about your armchair pyschotherapy of Palin haters.

                  1. He didn’t post anything of substance beyond “not true!!”. Do you consider yelling “NO” to be substance? I don’t.

                    1. Not at all, he just pointed out that your entire post was armchair psychologizing the people you hate so very much. That’s substance John, and not the same as saying “not true” at all.

              2. You have actually gotten worse in the last few months MNG. Really, why do you feel the need to insult people? We had an entire morning links thread this morning and there was not a single piece of invective on it. And people did disagree. But gee neither you nor double asshole were there for most of it. That is not a coincidence. Stop being such a jerk. You didn’t used to be this way.

                1. “Really, why do you feel the need to insult people?”

                  I don’t, I usually just insult you. Or rather I like to point out the sloppy thinking you exhibit that I think is the foundation of all movement conservatives. Your stances are a collection of sloppy thinking built on misinformation with plenty of movement conservative memes and argument lines.

                  You’re doing it now with your whiny “why are you so mean” lines. Any long time poster here knows how quickly and virurently nasty you become when you are arguing; the grammar and spelling breaks down, you curse and rage. But you have been caught red handed lately in some whoppers, a lot by me, and so you have to redouble your attacks and part of that is accuse me of being mean.

                  Jesus, stop crying.

                  1. john reacts that way cause his opinion aint fact…& john [HATEZ] that reality

                    1. Again double asshole, I have no idea what you are saying. Type in English and I will respond.

                    2. age divide grampz

                  2. That is all you do is insult. Now is “movement conservative” is the new juvenile name calling. What does that even mean? I am not a part of any movement. What do you think I spend my weekends organizing college Republicans and handing out flowers.

                    It is just another stupid and meaningless insult for you to throw out. And it is just tiresome. And I am going to keep calling you out on it. When you make actual points, I will discuss them with you. You come in and do your usual be prick routine, I am going to point it out.

                    I am not whining. I am pointing out that you are an asshole who wastes everyone’s time on here throwing out invective. You just don’t like hearing it because increasingly invective is all you bring to the table.

                    1. yeah, the guy who got called out the other day, not by liberal meanie ol me but other regulars here, for cut and pasting drudge to the point he was 40% of the posts on morning links is not a movement conservative…

                      “When you make actual points, I will discuss them with you. You come in and do your usual be prick routine, I am going to point it out.”

                      Lord, who is the concern troll now?

                      It’s a nice try John, but everyone who has been here for more than a week knows that there are many more people who attack more nasty than I do that you ignore, and more to the point few people here attack with the vehemence and quickness that you do. This is just some latest tack you are trying.

                    2. Everyone gets heated on here sometimes. The difference Mng is that is all you seem to do

              3. “This is one of John’s common lines: “you’re not adding anything of substance!!!!”

                Because this is really substantive, asscunt.

                “keep ur day [JOBZ] john cause psychotherapy obviously aint it”

        3. Sarah Palin is quite obviously a moron, and very, very unpopular in this country, which gives me a little faith. I’d rather we be a smart country that rejects idiot demagogues like Palin than one that follows the likes of her. Feeling superior is little comfort in a country like that.

          1. You know who else is an idiot demagogue

              1. Dammit! You answered first.

            1. Most of the country?

          2. First, since you are moron yourself, you opinion about who is and is not a moron can’t be trusted. And attacking Palin allows, ignorant, narrow minded, fearful liberals like yourself some comfort as you watch everything you believe in completely crash and burn. In that sense, you really do owe her a debt of gratitude.

            1. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for helping waffling centrists make up their mind in 2008.

              1. True. That allowed Obama to be elected President whose complete and utter incompetence brought the Republicans their biggest mid term victory since the Civil War and will most likely return control of both elected branches to the Republicans with a large majority in both houses in 2012.

                1. Then…you mean…we owe Tony? Ferk!

              2. It’s not really waffling if you can’t decide which sack of manure to vote for.

            2. so is this the “substance” you bring to the conversation john?

          3. Are you one of those idiots who thought Palin was being literal when she said “I can see Russia from my house”?

            Yeah, she’s not the brightest bulb in the batch. Biden’s not either, but you voted for him.

            1. She never said that. That was Tina Fey on SNL. Please tell me you were being ironic and knew that.

              1. She said “Next door neighbors,” but there were plenty of rubes who thought she was being serious, and then the Tina Fey line became attributed to her by the media. Not to mention the Hustler vid with Russian soldiers wandering onto her front door.

            2. GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

              PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

              GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

              PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

              Fey’s version sums up pretty well, methinks.

              1. The straights are narrow. You can see Russia from Alaska. And the fishing grounds go right against each other. That is a big deal in Alaska. So mo Fey didn’t sum it up at all

                1. It takes a lot of self-deception to believe that Fey’s comment sums up what Palin said. Palin certainly isn’t brilliant, but there was nothing wrong with what she said.

                  1. I don’t know. Seems like Fey nailed the content-free nature of the comment pretty well. Rather than answering the question, Palin said “Alaska is close to Russia – it’s a small world after all – we should all get along.”

                    1. Most politicians’s answers to questions are “content free” – or hadn’t you noticed that before?

              2. What, you don’t agree that a return to the Cold War is unthinkable? That a good relationship with Russia is worth cultivating? This is just common sense. It’s not a bad idea just because Sarah says it. Just like firing bad cops isn’t a bad idea because Sarah wants to do it. What is with you people? You are letting your little internal Sarahs pull your strings.

          4. Tony is quite obviously a moron, and very, very unpopular in this forum, which gives me a little faith. I’d rather we be a smart forum that rejects idiot demagogues like Tony than one that follows the likes of her. Feeling superior is little comfort in a forum like that.

            See what I did? I replaced Sarah Palin with “Tony”. And I replaced “country” with “forum”. And it works!! It’s like, so true. Omg!

            And I left in “her” near the end cos I think tony might have a vag or is missing “her” nuts. Har har har.

          5. Palin may not be the sharpest pencil in the box (which vice presidential candidates are?), but on paper, she had a much more justifiable place ont he ballot than Obama, as did McCain & Biden.

            Obama wrote two (TWO!) autobiographies before his 50th birthday, but claims he is self-obsessed are dismissed as “racist.”

            He served on a non-profit board tasked with improving Chicago Public Schools using OPM (Annenberg Foundation) – did the schools improve based on his “contributions”?

            He was elected to the Illinois Senate, where he promptly voted “Present” on hot-button issues, as if his mere presence were more important than an actual opinion on the matter.

            Building on his lack of accomplishments, he went on to run for U.S. Senate, and gave a rousing speech at the Democratic convention of 2004, where Kery/Edwards were selected as the leadership we needed in the White House.

            While in the Senate he never authored a bill, and before he had been on the job two of the six yers of his term, he effectively left town to run for President, a task that required $750M in campaign spending to convince Americans to vote Democratic after 8 years of George W Bush – that should have been the easiest campaign in history.

            On the other hand, Palin was elected Gov. of Alaska and made actual executive decisions, not taking popular positions against increasing the debt ceiling only to score political points, despite his (as we learned when he took office) his firm belief that increasing the national debt ceiling is the patriotic thing to do…

            People on the left liked to point out that “Palin was one heartbeat away from becoming President” while ignoring the cold, hard, fact that black men have shorter life-spans than white men, and that Joe Biden would be (and now is) one heart beat away from becoming President. Joe Biden: a human gaffe machine, with hair plugs.

  2. Middle America financially supports too many victims; they don’t want to elect a victim president.

    1. So you’re saying that Middle America no longer resents having to work with incompetent “affirmative action hires”?

  3. Thank goodness in a few more weeks the ballot filing deadlines for the early primary states will have passed, and even the dummies will finally realize that she’s not even running.

    1. And a nationwide suicide watch will go into alert.

    2. With the Rick Perry implosion, there is a good chance she will run.

      1. And I think The Rick Perry Implosion would make a great name for a band.

      2. We’ve seen Palin…NEXT!!

        1. Someone has to pick up the anybody but Romney vote. Who else? Ryan isn’t running. Christie might run but he is too socially liberal to win and I have a feeling he is a lose cannon and will implode like Perry. Who does that leave?

          1. Christie might run but he is too socially liberal to win

            The slayer of unions, the fiscal monster of the Garden State. If he’s too liberal to win, the GOP is fucked!

            1. Don’t you have a feeling that Christie will do or say something monumentally stupid and kill himself? I can’t shake that feeling. And is he socially too liberal? Or is this the year no one cares about social issues and ignore that?

              1. Maybe he will. He hasn’t been afraid to call bullshit out in NJ and he’s basically said he’ll run it like a one-termer, but goddamnit if he sticks to the fiscal issues and says “fuck it, someone else can deal with abortion after I’m gone” he would inspire alot of confidence in the conservative set. We need someone in there that calls the bullshit out on our fiscal situation and we could do a whole hell of alot worse than Christie.

                1. We could totally do worse than Christie. I am bothered by the story of him taking the state helicopter to his kid’s football game. It is a small thing. But after all the enemies Christie has made over spending, how could he have thought that was a good idea? It just says bad things about his judgment.

                  1. The pilot needed flight time, the Gov. uses his helicopter less than previous Gov. of NJ, and the pilot & crew of the helicoptor are on-duty 24×7 anyways, the only ACTUAL cost over and above a motorcade (2 SUV?) was the cost of the jet fuel burned, which he ultimately paid for himself. I suppose it would have been better if the helicoptor were to be flown around the capital empty for an hour or so so the pilot can get the required airtime in?

            2. Christie believes in AGW.

              1. OMG he’s awful why did I ever consider him!?

                so has he mandated that the NJ enact business killing regulations to bring on the green?

                1. Seriously LIT? I don’t follow it that closely. I love it when he smacks down teachers and such. But I don’t get a good vibe from Christie. I feel like there is something amiss. Maybe it is that he is a green.

                  1. no John, that bad vibe comes from the fact that he’s a politician. If you didn’t get that with someone, I’d be more concerned. But in these times, I’ll take someone who will smack down spending and entitlements, regardless of his other positions. And other than Paul, no one on the republican stage I believe has the gumption to do anything of the sort. Christie, maybe, but I doubt I’ll even get that choice.

                2. so has he mandated that the NJ enact business killing regulations to bring on the green?

                  Not that I know of of. ASAIK, he is not a dictator, but he has rhetorically supported carbon-trading. You can bet he will go along if some bullshit AGW legislation manages to get through Congress. Internet tough guy Christie will roll-over when it counts.

                  1. He’s also a big gun control advocate and recently whined pitiously about getting in on the Federal Disaster Relief largess, before the wind stopped blowing btw.

                3. Christie is trying to roll-back green initiatives – his “belief in AGW” is based on a review of average temp charts showing change, and agreeing that humans contributed to some of it.

                  http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..ams-jersey

            1. Not if I have anything to do with it!

      3. With the Rick Perry implosion, there is a good chance she will run.

        I disagree. If you’re going to seriously run for the presidency, at some point you have to start doing the unpleasant but necessary things, like fundraising, working the rubber chicken circuit, and participating in the national debates.

        Clearly there is a part of Palin that enjoys being in the limelight, but it has become impossible to avoid the conclusion that she doesn’t really want any part of doing the work I mentioned that you have to do to run.

        1. That is the thing. I don’t think you have to work the rubber chicken circuit. And I don’t think she has to do conventional fund raising. She could raise more money than she could spend via the internet.

          It is not 1968 anymore. You don’t have to campaign like you did back then. I don’t know that she will run. But if she does run, she won’t have to do it in the conventional manner.

        2. Sorry, if she can’t complete one term as governor, why should anyone take her seriously as a presidential candidate? Even she probably knows better.

          And don’t whine about the lawsuits – it’s not like that sort of thing will get any easier if she’s President.

          1. Read the history of it. She had no security. People were just walking up and knocking on her door. She had no way to pay the legal bills that were associated with the all of the bogus ethics complaints.

            Her choices were remain governor and if you are lucky some nut doesn’t shoot you and go broke or resign and write a book and make millions. If she had not resigned it would have been a sign of bad judgment.

            1. That doesn’t make the case to me that she should be President, considering how many hundreds of people have successfully completed terms as governor, senator, etc.

              Yes, the going gets tough – that happens when you get into the public spotlight and your family affairs don’t seem to be in order. How will that going get any easier by running for and/or becoming President? Really, what’s the point? I think, like Donald Trump, she’s teasing the attention to get more money. Can’t blame her, but can’t take her seriously either.

              1. Hers was a unique situation. No governor or senator I know faces being sued into bankruptcy or faces the kind of celebrity and hatred she faced with no security. I think the whole thing means nothing.

                1. She knew her security situation as governor before signing up for the VP slot. Given Alaska’s lack of sufficient protection for their governors, perhaps she should have told McCain that she’d rather wait until she can change Alaska law or has more experience to where resignation wouldn’t be a big deal because she’d have already proven herself.

                  I won’t pretend her treatment was fair, because it wasn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s essentially been a career politician with only a fraction of a term as governor and mayorship of a small town to show for it. That’s not enough experience to convince me she’s ready for the Presidency, and she doesn’t have significant enough experience outside of elected office to convince me to ignore her lack of political qualification.

                  I will give her credit though – blowing off the McGiniss book suits her a lot better than publishing a book refuting every bad thing he said. Being ultradefensive and paranoid merely provoked more attacks.

                  1. She knew her security situation as governor before signing up for the VP slot.

                    I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the media, the Democrats and the entirety of the Left going batshit insane on her to the extent that they have.

                    So, no. She could not have expected what happened.

                  2. What Azathoth said. No one has ever been subjected to the kind of batshit insane reaction that she got. She had no way of knowing when she accepted the nomination security would be necessary even if she lost the election.

                    1. You mean like the birthers, Larry Sinclair, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Will Ayres, secret lover inside his campaign whisked away to some Caribbean island, accusations of Muslim brainwash, wanting to kill grandmas and all the other scandals real or imagined that followed Obama? I’d hesitate to say “no one ever” – the heat was higher because in Palin’s case the biased media was determined to vet every inch of her life.

                      But when you run for President or that proximity, you should prepare for the worst. If she didn’t have the foresight to recognize that the scandals inside her family and the intrastate ethics complaints might come back to haunt her as a national figure I can’t really be sympathetic to the fact she could not finish her term. She doesn’t deserve a break simply because the media was harder on her – in fact, the counterpoint is that the media should have been just as hard on Obama, McCain, Biden, etc. Politicians be proven as the craven, power-hungry, flawed individuals with God complexes they usually are.

                    2. Ask yourself, if you were in her position what would you have done? If you say anything but write the book and take the money you are crazy or lying. So how can people hold a decision against Palin when 99% of them would make the same choice in her position?

                    3. I don’t blame her for doing what she did. At the time, that was the best approach from a short-term gain perspective. I would have seriously considered cashing in if I were in her shoes as well.

                      But on a long-term perspective, she shot her future as a national political candidate in the foot. Nobody wants a president who quits when the going gets tough, or files defamation lawsuits against every unfounded rumor against them and their families.

                      I’d suggest she runs for the next open Alaska Senate seat and rebuild her reputation. Maybe in another 12 years or so, her early resignation won’t be much of a strike against her. But a presidential campaign would be quixotic, and spending an entire summer pretending to consider a presidential campaign to get attention and money and then backing out reaffirms the argument that she’s not honest, decisive or committed.

                  3. @Proprietrist – You imagine she could have predicted that level of vitriol against her as a candidate?

                    I don’t argue she should run for President/VP again, but it beggers the imagination to think she could have predicted that fire storm of attention. She wasn’t ready for prime-time, but that was an unprecedented assault on her by the left in recent history.

                    1. I certainly don’t think it was THAT unprecedented. Shrub, Obama, Hillary, Bill, McCain etc. all had to put up with unfounded and founded personal rumors from the opposition. Katie Couric gave one interview where Palin herself faltered so badly, the suggestion that she was a rube unprepared for the spotlight became a consensus, even amongst many who don’t disagree with her ideology. Come on: “what magazines do you read?”, “what foreign policy experience qualifies you for national office?”, “name one Supreme Court case”, etc. are not mindbenders, even if the way Couric asked them was somewhat condescending. She expected softballs? Really?! Any of us here could probably answer those questions better than she did, and all the liberal blogs and pundits probably could too. If you come off as a total rube and the Presidential candidate is already past average life expectancy with a history of health problems, getting overly defensive and blaming Katie Couric and the media instead of doing everything you can to repair the damage you caused doesn’t help your case.

                      Once this impression takes hold, it gives weight to all the other unfounded rumors that reinforce urban liberals’ stereotypes about red state bumpkins. Her household wasn’t in order when she accepted the VP nomination in the first place, and then she complains about and even threatens legal action over the “unfair” attention paid to her family?

                      Liberal media bias sucks, but it’s reality. Get over it.

  4. “and widely panned reality TV star”

    I never watched the show. But my impression was that it was anything but widely panned. Even places like the Washington Post admitted it was pretty good. Yet, Reason always puts “widely panned” in anytime they talk about it. Panned by whom?

    1. Panned by whom?

      By your Betters. Quiet down now, prole.

      1. Did Dave Weigel like it? His is the only opinion that matters.

  5. Maybe the book was just a plant, to make her look good.

    I wonder sometimes if Michelle Bachmann doesn’t exist for the same purpose. Because Palin is Margaret Thatcher in comparison.

    1. Margaret Thatcher always had that “I could be a knuckle smacking nun” appeal to her. You knew she meant business, because I mean “Nuns!!”, don’t cross’em.

      Palin and Bachmann have too much housewife in them to win.

      Hows that for lazy punditry!!

      1. Howie Kurtz is that you?

        1. The horror! The horror!

      2. Nuns have glass jaws. I speak from experience.

  6. But the “bitch be crazy” meme is soooo much easier to write about.

  7. Yet another example of why biographies/autobiographis/hagiographies/etc of the living are generally so worthless. The perspective of time seems necessary to clear the clouds and reveal at least a somewhat accurate portrayal of people.

    This peurile rubbish is even worse than most, so thanks for reading it for me, Nick, so I don’t have to.

    It’s clearly a waste of perfectly-good dead trees.

    1. It depends. There are some good autobiographies out there. And some good biographies of the living. Steven Abrose’s biography of Eisenhower was written while Eisenhower was alive and it isn’t worthless. I don’t think the Presidential memoirs are all worthless.

      But I think any biography about a political figure that is written by a nut from the other side is going to be worthless.

      1. “generally” so worthless. “generally”

      2. How do you know that the serial plagiarizer Ambrose actually wrote it?

        1. He only started plagiarizing when he got old and sloppy. Seriously, wasn’t his book on the bomber pilots in Europe the only book anyone has ever accused him of plagiarizing in?

    2. autobiographis/hagiographies/etc of the living are generally so worthless.

      Obama’s autobiographies are very revealing.

  8. ALL THIS ANALYSIS AND HANDWRINGING ABOUT SARAH PALIN BORES THE URKOBOLD. THE URKOBOLD READ MCGINNISS’ BOOK AND FOUND NO ANSWERS TO THE ONE QUESTION THE URKOBOLD FINDS COMPELLING ABOUT PALIN: HOW BIG ARE HER TITS? THE EVIDENCE IS UNCLEAR.

    1. Clearly this is a job for STEVE SMITH

      1. In Chapter 13, I read that she has a thing for Sasquatch.

    2. I have lots more questions? Spit or swallow? Shaved or a landing strip?

      1. THE URKOBOLD REGRETS FUNDING MCGINNISS. THE DIRECTIVE WAS TO WRITE A SEXUAL EXPOS?. INSTEAD, BORING BOREDOM. EVEN THE SEX WITH A BLACK MAN CHAPTER WAS BORING.

    3. Does Baron ?nderbheit know you got out?

  9. And – just so we’re clear – I’d hit that all day, every day. For a while.

    1. as long as it didnt talk

      1. That’d be a bonus

  10. The slayer of unions, the fiscal monster of the Garden State. If he’s too liberal to win, the GOP is fucked!

    You forgot ex-prosecutor and drug warrior.

    I don’t think Christie is socially liberal in any meaningful sense of that expression.

    1. Isn’t he pro abortion? Isn’t he pro gay marriage? Those are two pretty liberal positions on two pretty big social issues. And everyone is a drug warrior. That is almost a socially neutral position sadly.

      1. He could dispel any concern about that by saying “Guys, we’re bankrupt, do you want a minister or an accountant running your country?”

        1. That is a great line. You should go into speech writing.

          1. fuck off John 🙂

        2. I’m afraid of what the answer might be.

    2. There is one, and only one, issue for sorting the socially liberal from the knuckle-draggers.

      Gay. Marriage.

      Don’t know, and don’t care, what Christie thinks of that.

    3. Bob Barr was a drug warrior too.

      In any case, Christie sure isn’t afraid to call out all the bullshit spending that goes on and maybe we could use a “single issue”er.

    4. don’t think Christie is socially liberal in any meaningful sense of that expression.

      Christie is liberal in all the usual ways, but not a libertarian. Didn’t support the legal action against Obamacare, for instance. Just like Guiliani, people call him conservative because he’s tough on crime and has tried to trim a little off his grotesquely bloated state/city government budget, but other than that, he’s a lib.

      1. Yeah, I mean – in reality besides the party affiliation, is there THAT much difference between Christie and Andrew Cuomo or Jerry Brown, both of whom deserve a slight bit of respect for attempting to reign in their horrid states’ budgets and public unions?

    5. Does he still talk anti-drug or was it just a job? Did he learn anything there? Some of the biggest pro-legalization folks come out of law enforcement, such as the LEAP organization.

  11. Palin and Bachmann have too much housewife in them

    “Lights! Camera! ACTIOOOOON!!”

    1. *wow chicka wow wow*

      1. I’ll be in my bunk.

  12. Good thing we have public opinion polls so that we all know which politicians we are supposed to hate.

      1. Is that in pesos?

  13. How’s Christie doing on that whole “Right to keep and bear arms” thing?

    1. commuted Atkain whoever’s sentence who got caught up in NJ’s asinine gun laws. Don’t know if he’s made any push to reform them, but its a check in the gun rights column for me.

      1. He should have pardoned Atkain. If he had done that, I would feel a lot better about him.

        1. +1

          Christie wimped out in order to have it both ways.

        2. And Christie has no desire to push back on any of NJ’s insane gun laws.

        3. Not pardoning Atkain was a tactical decision made by Atkain’s lawyer. They requested the sentence be commuted to get him out of jail. A pardon would have ended the ability of Atkain to fight the original conviction. Or some such legal wrangling mumbo jumbo.

  14. Disclaimer:

    Christie might very well be the “least worst” guy the Repubicants could come up with, but the fact that Bill Kristol is completely overwhelmed by slobbering lust for him makes me nervous.

    1. What has Christie done? He got elected governor of NJ. That is a big plus. And he admits the obvious and understands something has to be done about public sector pay. Ok. But what has Christie done that Scott Walker hasn’t? Why isn’t anyone talking about drafting Walker for President?

      As much as I want to like the guy, I am just not that impressed with him.

      1. walker hasnt a wingnutz’s chance in yale

        1. You with your imaginary language again. Write in English. It is much more effective.

          1. ur not the target audience john

            1. ah huh, its all about john

            2. Since no one that I know speaks your imaginary language, you still would be better of typing in English.

              1. Marvy fab, dude. You 411 those hep cats what’s what, you dig?

              2. U 2. “better off”

      2. Christie is an incomplete picture. Can’t the GOP find someone who actually completed a term or two as a governor, who accomplished things we admire, and has some successful real world executive or entrepreneurial to go along with demonstrated political skills????

        1. The problem is the real revolution in the GOP didn’t start until about 2009. So most of the people who are worth a shit are really new.

          1. ..or really old (read: dead).

            The neocons ruined the last decade and a half.

        2. I know of a guy…

        3. Haven’t you heard? Johnson is too extreme. In fact, he’s so extreme, they’re going to make his blood into a cola.

        4. You mean a guy like Gary Johnson who has both been a successful executive and entrepreneur, and who isn’t a complete idiot?

      3. Ask a NJ public school teacher what Gov. Christie has done…

        I personally loved that the teachers unions ran ads against Christie, all but calling him the anti-christ, then when he won without their support, the teachers were “insulted” that the newly elected Gov. wasn’t meeting with them as soon as he got into office… As I recall, Christie said something to the effect of “I got here without their help/backing, I don’t owe them anything…”

  15. I like Sarah. I think she’d be a good prez. All I need from a Prez is to get the govt outta the way. She can do that and the record hints she would. There is one issue these days, spending. She’s good on that.

  16. “Despite the buzz and hoopla she first generated when she stepped onto the national stage, Palin was a less-than-stellar vice presidential candidate,”

    McCain was trailing Obama until Palin was added to the ticket. She was a good choice in that she added spark to a campaign which excited no one and was headed for sure defeat.

    ” and in a YouTube world, Katie Couric interviews are forever.”

    No question that the Couric interview revealed Palin’s inexperience and naive trust in the McCain campaign staff. Youtube is forever for all pols. Surely the public will quickly get used to all pols having embarrassing videos posted forever. In the long run, an embarrassing interview tape won’t mean much since everyone has them.

    “Her quick retreat from the Alaska governor’s mansion, which she quit after serving barely half a term,”

    Driven out by a bankrupting abuse of the Alaska ethics system. If Palin can get the facts about that out to the public, few will hold it against her.

    “was punctuated by the most bizarre and self-pitying exit speech since Richard Nixon promised in 1962, after losing the California governor’s race, that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore.”

    WTF speech did NG watch? She gave a fairly normal, “I’m doing this for the good of the State” speech. NG’s characterization is overwrought.

    “Widely discussed lapses in judgment, including a push to fire her former brother-in-law, who was a state trooper,”

    A completely manufactured “scandal” which she has addressed thoroughly.

    “and her disturbingly narcissistic reaction to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona raise serious questions about her capacity to govern effectively.”

    She was being blamed because she allegedly fostered an atmosphere of violence by using “targets” on her website for those pols she wanted to vote out. Her video response was well-done, but poorly timed. She was obviously trying to be careful about her response, knowing that she would be treated mercilessly for any mistakes she made. As it turns out, the mistake she made was in releasing the video too late. Definitely demonstrated political inexperience. Should have accepted the cost of the video production as money wasted and just not released it. Palin’s concern about responding to the shooting was reasonable since the Democrats have a history of trying to stick the blame for violence on anyone they fear politically and it was a good idea to try to help shape the narrative.

    1. Good post. I don’t know what it is, but Gillespie really turns into a prick when it comes to Palin. Love or hate Palin, none of those points you mention are valid. If she is such an easy target, why can’t Gillespie come up with some honest criticism?

  17. Actually, Scott Walker could be ready in a few years for a prez run.He’s stood up well to the WI Marxist onslaught.

    How is Palin a fucking housewife? She was governor of a state.

    Anyway, Libs hate her because she’s hot and has a family and is a successful politician.

    Look at the hags, both men and women, on the Left. Unsuccessful, dateless, losers. You do the math. Ever talk to a Leftist who had their life together? Could easily find dates? Was remotely satisfied with their lot in life?

    Most if not all leftists I know are penniless losers who sit home on Saturday night wondering what all the other Game of Thrones aficionados are doing.

    Reason hates her because her “death panels” comments has had more libertarian staying power than the rag’s forest of dead trees and wasted bandwith could ever hope to accomplish.

    And of course, she’s stupid. She opposes Obama who’s soooo smart. And just like John up above said: stupid people hate her because it makes them feel smart in the same way American idiots watch BBC programming because it makes them feel smart.

    1. Great post. But BBC America gives us Top Gear. So it is not all bad.

    2. How is Palin a fucking housewife? She was governor of a state.

      She comes off as “as a mother” in her talking points. That may be an appeal to her constituents, but “as a mother” reads to me as “housewife”. Its an attempt to play the female role for empathy rather than address the issues at hand. Never could see her as a leader, despite her record of being governor for half a term.

  18. “Widely discussed lapses in judgment, including a push to fire her former brother-in-law, who was a state trooper,”

    WAIT ARE YOU SERIOUS? Oh, thank gaia she never because VP.

    I mean nationalizing the HC industry is bad, but wrongfully firing a state trooper! How can the republic survive?

    Of course, Ron Paul’s involvement with racist newsletters, why, that’s not a slip of judgment.

    Or Reason’s decision to hire D. Weigel. Wow, what a track record!

    1. Why do you continue commenting here if you hate it so much.

    2. Umm, wrongfully firing a state trooper is bad policy witnessed. The newsletters weren’t implementation of policy and Reason’s hiring of Weigel is a non-sequitar in this discussion.

  19. John’s amateur psychotherapy aside I can tell you what I don’t like about Palin and what most people I know that are liberal don’t like about her. They see her as stupid, yes, but they see her more as an unprincipled panderer.

    “All of them”

    1. Are you talking about Obama or Palin?

      1. Obama and Palin are similar in some respects; both were relatively inexperienced candidates that ideologues could paint however they wanted, styling them as champions of their causes based on the most symbolic of evidence.

        But I see differences. It’s unthinkable that this Palin would stand up to her base and say somehting to anger them the way Obama has done since becoming President. Additionally Obama has shown areas of excellence (as a rhetorician for example; talk about ‘teleprompters’ all you want the ability to give a good speech is still an ability) while I have seen none from Palin.

        Some, like John, seem to argue that the proof of Palin’s excellence is in her popularity. But by that logic Britney Spears is excellent. People can show up on the scene with very little excellence but fall into a niche and fame, that demonstrates little to me.

        1. Obama has proven to be the worst speaker maybe to ever hold the White House. He gives more speeches to less effect than any President in my life time. He is constantly speaking, yet none of those speeches have ever once moved public opinion.

          1. “Obama has proven to be the worst speaker maybe to ever hold the White House.”

            This just shows how deranged your Obama hate has made you John.

            Even most prominent conservatives will admit that he gives a great speech, they just say he reads the teleprompter. In fact a common meme on the right is that this substance-less, inexperienced empty suit rode his silver tongue into the white house.

            1. Great speeches by what standard? Go read the reviews of his jobs speech. They were terrible. When is the last time he gave a speech that anyone remembers? More importantly, if the speeches don’t convince anyone, and judging by his approval ratings and the support for his policies they don’t, how are they in any objective manner, good?

              1. I’m with you on this. None of his speeches have been memorable, and he’s become less convincing over time. He only gave “good” speeches when he wasn’t responsible for policy. It wasn’t so much his “silver tongue” that got him into office as it was an American public that wanted to believe despite the shallowness of his proposals and a press unwilling to actually offer criticisms when they were warranted.

          2. Does anyone give good speeches anymore?

            1. The thing is, people who we think in history gave great speeches, their political opponents at the time did not like the speeches. Lincoln’s speeches were ridiculed by his political enemies.

              Even many of Obama’s opponents will grant the guy is capable of giving a heck of a speech. In fact, as I noted, they work that into how devious he is.

              1. Yeah, he reads good. Get him off the teleprompter, though, and he’s a train wreck.

        2. Re: MNG,

          But I see differences. It’s unthinkable that this Palin would stand up to her base and say [something] to anger them the way Obama has done since becoming President.

          You mean she wouldn’t flip-flop like a wind indicator? Because what angers Obama’s base is his unwillingness to stand for anything.

    2. MNG – palin’s the best grifter ive seen in some time.

      1. Re: Double Asshole,

        MNG – palin’s the best grifter ive seen in some time.

        You certainly don’t get out much, do you?

        Imbecile.

        1. If John is so concerned about “substance-less insult” posts, then why no denunciation of OM’s post here?

          Answer: there is no concern. It’s just some silly game he’s playing. He’s been caught in some whoppers lately and is grasping at straws, flipping through the back of the playbook.

          1. Everyone knows double asshole has nothing to say. You once did have something to say. And for some reason you stopped doing it. We just expect more of you MNG.

      2. Who did she steal from? Last I heard taking speaking fees and selling books was an honest way to make a living. If it is not, you better get Bill Clinton on the line and tell him.

        See when you speak English, people can respond to your posts because it is clear what you said. I knew you could do it.

        1. John attacking someone’s English is like a black hole calling a kettle black.

          Sheesh.

          1. To his credit, at least John tries.

            1. Whoever o2 is they are simply texting their posts.

              1. That’s not an excuse. Everyone else here, John included, seems to be able to write like adults. Orrin’s a (supposed) mech engineer who writes like a fourth grader.

  20. BBC is great, but it is no more high-brow or ‘better’ than US television. It’s that we Americans see the best of foreign stuff, while the world sees all American entertainment, from Dude Where’s My Car to Madmen.

  21. It is easy to call someone stupid. It requires no proof. In that sense I agree with John that Palin allows many less accomplished people, who couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper diploma, look down their noses at her. Yet, it does appear to me that there is something missing in her. By the time one reaches her age, mere curiosity should give a person a more complete world view. So, I am not a fan. Having said that, I think Obama also lacks the qualities necessary to be president, I mean besides being born in this counrty (hah hah). He just gets breaks because he is a Democrat, and he is black. If he were black and a Republican, he’d be “stupid”, of course.

    1. I don’t see where Palin is anything other than a mainline conservative politician who figured out that social media and the internet had changed the way you do politics. I fail to see any evidence that she is any less intelligent than Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or Rick Perry any of the Republican presidential candidates. And she doesn’t support anything outside of the Republican mainstream.

      Yet, liberals don’t call Perry stupid. They don’t start eating the furniture and going crazy when you speak the name Santorum like they do Palin. Worse still people like Elizabeth Warren who believe absolutely goofy and stupid things, much dumber than anything Palin has ever said, are held up as intellectual paragons. The whole “Palin is stupid” argument has nothing to do with the facts or Palin herself. And it has everything to do with the people who make the charge.

      1. While I agree with your thesis about “stupidity”, I beg to differ somewhat. You must be hanging out with a different type of liberal. The ones I know all call Perry and Santorum stupid. By the way, I think Santorum is a douche. He might be the one Republican that would make me stay home for the general election. I said, might.

        1. That is true. They think all Republicans are stupid. I was speaking more about the media. The media doesn’t come out with anywhere near as harsh and personal attacks on the other Republicans as they do on Palin.

        2. There is a difference between saying “judging by the content of MNG’s posts and his apparent inability to learn or process information, I must conclude that he is stupid” and “because Palin talks in an annoying voice, didn’t go to the right schools, doesn’t have the right friends, doesn’t read the right stuff, has a pretty smile and big boobs, she must be stupid and from there it follows that whatever she says is stupid”.

          Calling MNG stupid is an observation (what he says is stupid so he must be stupid), with Palin it is an ad-hominem attack (she is stupid so what she says is stupid).

          Oh, and I fully do not expect MNG to understand the distinction… because he is stupid.

          1. The nutjob on the libertarian site who has suggested that liberals be euthanized thinks a frequent liberal poster on the site is stupid.

            Thanks for proving my overall point nutjob.

            1. Liberals are people who use the government to commit acts that, if committed by an individual, would be criminal.
              They pervert government from the institution you go to to seek justice when someone plunders you, into an instrument of plunder.
              Where do you go to seek justice when the injustice is committed by those to whom you are supposed to go when an injustice is done to you?
              Liberals destroy the concept of justice.
              They are thieves and liars.

              So yes. I would have no problem with retroactively aborting all liberals who cannot be cured of their mental illness, for this illness, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the subjugation of society to a violent ruling elite.

              1. And white men put dogs to black schoolchildren. Stop being so back-of-the-cereal-box-y.

      2. One of John’s, and most movement conservatives (hell most ideologues of any stripe), problems is to equate someone disagreeing with him with being stupid. Therefore someone like Warren who has different ideas than John about economic regulation=stupid.

        He can’t differentiate between someone being stupid because they hold different views on a complex matter and someone being stupid because they don’t know what the term “achilles heel” means or can’t name a magazine they read…

        1. No MNG. Thinking that because other contribute to your wealth making they then have a claim on your wealth is a silly and stupid idea. By her logic, we should all be paying the doctors who delivered us a portion of our salary since without them many of us wouldn’t be here.

          1. Again, you can’t differentiate between someone being stupid because they differ with you on a point of political philosophy and someone who doesn’t know what the phrase “Achilles heel” refers to. And you’re just making that plainer in your response.

            Let me help you distinguish between disagreeing with someone and finding that person stupid. Think of someone with whom you agree, like Palin. Now think of another person who would agree with you and Palin, but in a much more articulate and reasoned way than Palin would, like F.A. Hayek.

            See how someone like Palin can be right and yet not so smart? Reverse it and you’ve learned a valuable lesson today young man.

            1. You are stupid because you think that a tax deduction (taking less than before, or taking x and giving back y where y < x) is a gift.

              You are stupid because you think that not giving (not taking from one person and giving to another) is theft.

              Not only does that make you stupid, but it makes you dangerous.

    2. It is easy to call someone stupid.

      It’s convenient as well.

      Attach the “stupid” label to someone and what they say doesn’t matter.

      Why argue ideas when you can argue people?

  22. Like libs care about principles. As if libs can define let alone spell the word principles.

    Pandering to what, MNG? Most libs/leftists I know don’t have a clue about policy and positions.

    Several years ago within a matter of months, I got into two heated dicussions with your runofthemill libs:

    One was insistent that when H. Clinton comes into the White House every death row inmate would be summarily executed because Hillary is pro pro death penalty.

    Another friend was adamant that we all vote Democrat, especially for Obama, because the Dems and Obama would make stopping illegal immigration their number on priority.

    The only ‘principals’ leftists like are those frothing at the mouth teacher union members. Ha!

    1. Of course she doesn’t pander to liberals, she panders to conservatives. Her entire recent career since the nomination has been a paragon of pandering. What journals do you read? All of them. Who is your favorite founding father? All of them. Being governor tough? Quit. Media interviews tough? Hide from them, only go on friendly outlets. Hang on near the outskirts of the race, but don’t declare until you like the waters.

      She’s a cowardly panderer, nearly as bad as Romney.

      1. It’s a real shame in a way, because contrary to John’s amatuer psychotherapy hour, I think the pre-nomination Palin held enormous potential. She was hardly the caricature she has become. She worked across the aisle, she challenged her own party, she fought corruption and worked for non-ideological solutions to many problems. But then the campaign called on her to be the pitbull of the campaign, the conservatives driven by extraoridnary hatred of Obama ate it up, it went to her head, and she has run with it. She’s a hero to them now, but she’s flushed any future she may have had on the national stage down the john…

        1. Concern troll is concerned. Gee if she had just listened to you MNG she could have been someone instead of the millionaire king maker of the Republican party that she is.

          1. She could have maybe been what she obviously yearns so strongly for, and that is a national candidate.

            Not all millionaire kingmakers take New Hampshire and Iowa bus tours John. She wanted to be Pres, but the same act that has made her so beloved by movement conservatives has turned off so many people it is largely out of reach now.

            1. And who is the arm chair psychologist again? That woman has been the subject of the vicious unfair smear campaign in the last fifty years. The fact that she is still a national figure is an amazing accomplishment.

              And like you give a flying fuck about whether she is really national candidate. Boohoo. You are just concern trolling.

              1. It’s not armchair psychologizing to suggest that a woman who organizes bus tours of New Hampshire and Iowa is interested in running for President John.

                What is armchair psychologizing is when you create paragraphs of speculation as to why people feel the way they do about someone, denying the reasons they actually give you and trying to get what is “really” going on in their heads.

                You’re right I don’t have any concern for Palin, she’s made her bed by being petty and has to lie in it now. I’m simply noting she made poor choices given her goal.

                1. Maybe she is running. I haven’t talked her. Bit if she does she immediately goes to third place and is a major candidate. All that without even declaring. Not bad

          2. Self-made of course. It’s not affirmative action when Republicans get it!

            1. Republicans are total hypocrites on that. They go nuts for Sarah Palin or Herman Cain because of the political advantage of running a woman or African-American despite the fact that neither are any more qualified to be President than Obama was.

              They try to have it both ways where they can lambaste Obama’s incompetence stemming from his inexperience, make the case that he didn’t deserve the editorship of the Harvard Review and criticize his voting “present” in the State legislature, but Palin’s personal history and record is off the table – and if you disagree you’re obviously targeting her because she’s a strong, successful conservative woman. They go on and on about how great it would be to elect the first “real” black President in Herman Cain as Rush was saying earlier, and in the same breath will whine about how Obama only got elected because of white guilt.

              Hypocrites.

              1. I’m no fan of Palin, but Cain is ten thousand times more qualified than Obama.
                Not only has he run more than one successful business, he was a rocket scientist for fuck’s sake.
                Put a rocket scientist against a community organizer, and I’ll pick the rocket scientist all day long!

                1. Note I never said Cain wasn’t smart. I certain think he’s intelligent enough to be President (although his Islamophobia doesn’t win him any cred with me.)

                  But I do think political experience is important – unless you’ve already dealt with the political process in depth you’re bound to be in trouble if you jump into the top slot in the nation. Moreover, it’s hard to deny that he’s being elevated because of his race. A white rocket scientist and ex-CEO of a third-rate pizza company would probably not get off the ground. That doesn’t mean his qualifications aren’t interesting, but he should go for a governor or Senate slot first.

                  1. “Moreover, it’s hard to deny that he’s being elevated because of his race.”

                    It’s also an allegation that is impossible to disprove, even if false. That’s why the race card is so effective. Essentially you’re saying that the only reason to support Cain is his race, and the only way to prove you’re not supporting him because of his race is to stop supporting him.

                    “A white rocket scientist and ex-CEO of a third-rate pizza company would probably not get off the ground.”

                    You’re judging the man, not his policies.

                    Cain is popular because of his libertarian leanings, and mostly his common sense tax policy. He want’s to eliminate the tax code and replace it with something that could be filled out on an index card.

                    What’s not to like about that?

                    Unless you don’t like the idea because it came from a black guy who has betrayed his race by not supporting the Democrats?

                    1. I think Cain is popular because he is so plain spoken and people look at him as the anti-politician. He could be white and would still be getting the same support.

                    2. I’m not saying you can’t like Cain for his policies. But unobjectively he is absolutely the most politically inexperienced major candidate in the campaign (including multiple candidates who haven’t made the debates like Buddy Roemer and Thad McCotter), and he thus gets outsized attention in proportion to his political experience. Considering this, his policies aren’t distinguishable enough from the rest to merit much attention at all. Thus, we must candidly examine the root of a big chunk of his popularity.

                      Not trying to play the race card, but I do see his popularity as something of a reaction to the Left’s accusations of the Tea Party being racist. They can point to him and say “see – we aren’t racist after all!” There’s obviously political benefits for the Tea Party and the GOP to nominate a black candidate, and I don’t necessarily look down on them taking advantage of these benefits. Cain himself understands the political benefits of being able to harshly criticize Obama without being called racist. Hell, I voted for Badnarik in ’04, who had never even been elected dogcatcher – so I understand principles are more important than experience. But Cain isn’t bringing anything unique to the table other than his race. Others onstage (Romney and Johnson) also have extensive business and political experience and/or have far better (if not perfect) tax plans, yet Johnson’s barely allowed on the stage.

                      What I get annoyed with is when the Right pretend such superficialities are so bad when the Left does it while they engage in it themselves, and holding double standards regarding how much political experience is required to be “qualified”.

                    3. “his policies aren’t distinguishable enough from the rest to merit much attention at all.”

                      Obviously you have no idea what his policies are since they are quite a bit different from the rest.

                      You’re a liar your you’re talking out your ass. Either way I’m not interested.

                      Now please do me a favor and go fuck yourself.

                      🙂 toodles

                    4. “They can point to him and say ‘see – we aren’t racist after all!'”

                      I see it as them pointing to him and saying “See black people! You don’t have to coddle up to the people who promise to give you free shit! They look down on you. They view you with contempt. We see everyone as having equal opportunity! Even black people! Give yourself a chance and we’ll give you a chance. No special favors. No special breaks. We don’t exclude you, but we won’t include you out of guilt. Bring something to the table other than your skin color and we’ll see what’s up. We don’t let you get by with a lower score because we think you are inferior, we don’t put you on a pedestal because of the color of your skin, we’re giving you an honest chance!”

                      But you’re coming at this with a premise that ‘all non-Democrats are racists because they don’t support giving a leg up to the people Democrats think are inferior and thus deserve a leg up’ attitude.

                      Who’s the racist now liberal-BOY?

                    5. WTF? I’m not a Democrat/liberal nor do I think most Tea Partiers are racist. Where did you draw that conclusion from? I’m merely pointing out that his popularity seems to be a direct response from the Tea Party to the *false* media/Democratic premise that the TP are a bunch of racist neo-Confederate resegregationists. Like I said, I don’t blame them for at least elevating him (since the meme has deeply injured their cause) nor do I blame Cain for using the opportunity for his own political advancement. I have no doubt he deeply believes what he is saying and that the TP does actually agree with most of his policies.

                      But in my perspective, he’s decrying race-based preferential treatment while he’s getting unexplainably outsized attention considering his lack of political experience – is it un-PC to deny race his race is a factor in his popularity? Seems completely logical, but the double standards are showing. Just offering my take on it; I could care less what race any candidate from any party is. What I’d still like to know is how are his policies superior to anyone else? He opposes comprehensive immigration reform, allows Islamophobia to guide his appointments (preferential treatment for non-Muslims, anyone?), offers a tax plan that will continue income taxation while adding a new national sales tax, supports a gay marriage ban in the Constitution, etc. Why should I, as a libertarian, consider him as a superior candidate to, say, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?

                    6. Not trying to play the race card, but I do see his popularity as something of a reaction to the Left’s accusations of the Tea Party being racist. They can point to him and say “see – we aren’t racist after all!”

                      Yes, how is that any different to what the Dems have been doing for the last fifty years?

                    7. Ah, that makes it ok then.

                2. Moreover Obama was a constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney, had an interesting background, etc. The whole “community organizer” meme is no different from the “reality show star” meme for Sarah Palin.

                  1. He was an adjunct professor. And he never published a single article of note. If I am not mistaken, I don’t think he ever published a single law review article. As a professor that is pretty inexcusable. The civil rights attorney part is interesting. I have never heard what he did as an attorney. Since the media never vetted him, we really have no idea if he was a good lawyer or not.

                  2. Obama was a constitutional law professor

                    He was a non-tenure track lecturer. The distinction is huge in the academy. Typically, someone like him is hired to pad affirmative action statistics or as a means of interjecting radical politics into courses while retaining the ability to disavow him in case the crap that he teaches leads to bad PR for the law school.

                    civil rights attorney

                    He was paid to advise protestors on the kind of tactics that they should use. You should feel good that he was almost certainly paid indirectly with tax dollars funneled through some ACORN-like government program. I don’t think he ever did any trial work. Maybe that’s why he and Kagan get along so well.

                    The whole “community organizer” meme is no different from the “reality show star” meme for Sarah Palin.

                    Obama, when asked which of his accomplishments he was most proud of, answered with his work as a “community organizer”. Palin has never said anything similar.

                    Of course, when Obama says “community organizer”, he means “political agitator” – another example of the left co-opting a respectable label and applying it to their own foul activities.

              2. I’d take Cain over Obama, Proprietrist, even though he’s a Republican.

                Lesser of two evils, and all that.

                But I’d put a gun in my mouth before I’d vote for Palin.

                1. Oh, and how much experience did Obama have before he stepped into that slot?

                  1. That was exactly my point about the double standard where the Republicans accused Obama of inexperience and preferential treatment because of his race, while offering Herman Cain preferential treatment and a pass on his inexperience. Either those things are important or they aren’t – but it’s partisan shilldom to try to have it both ways.

                2. I don’t see how Cain and Palin are that different. I do think Cain is smarter and a better speaker than Palin, side by side, but their policies aren’t really that different. I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for Cain or Obama.

                  In Cain’s case, immigration reform is a huge issue for me because I’m dealing with it right now. It’s not as though he paid lip service to comprehensive reform like most of the other candidates – he patently rejected it altogether. Also, I can’t vote for anyone that supports enshrining discrimination against gays in the Constitution. It’s just one of those issues that causes me to immediately strike the candidate off my list.

                  1. I’d take Cain over Romney or Santorum or Bachmann or Gingrich or… well, you get the point.

                    I’d also take someone who’s never held public office over someone who only got into public office to become president a mere couple of years later – like Obama.

                    And I’d DEFINITELY take a capitalist over, say, Obama.

                    Ron Paul and/or Gary Johnson are not going to win the nomination, unfortunately. Cain is the least-worst of the rest of the Team Red pack, and I’m loathe to vote R in general elections, so voting for Obama is out as well.

                    We’re fucked, anyway. Staving off the inevitable socialist police state – or right-wing state – is the best we can do.

      2. Re: MNG,

        Her entire recent career since the nomination has been a paragon of pandering.

        And she’s unique in that way, in the history of humanity…

        right?

      3. Paragon of pandering? Citation please? Name ten things she did that you would describe as pandering and explain why it was pandering and it why it was uniquely different than anything else politicians do?

        1. Er, I cited a bunch of examples in my post.

          1. No you didn’t. She attacked Obama? That is pandering? Everyone hates Obama. Hell is Ralph Nader a panderer too?

            1. God, Jesus you are sloppy.

              “What journals do you read? All of them. Who is your favorite founding father? All of them. Being governor tough? Quit. Media interviews tough? Hide from them, only go on friendly outlets. Hang on near the outskirts of the race, but don’t declare until you like the waters.”

              1. First, that interview was cut specifically to make her answers look bad. Second, it was over three years ago. She has been on the national scene ever since then and all you have is that one interview?

                More importantly, giving a bad answer to a question is not pandering. So once again, name ten examples of where you feel she has pandered and explain why those examples are anything worse than any other politician and justify her being called a panderer. This is third chance to do this. Either list the examples or admit it is not true.

                1. Wait just a minute, let’s do as fluffy called you out on the other day and first get you to stop and acknolwedge your own slop. You seemed to think, despite the fact that I had already listed examples of pandering above your post, that I was saying she was pandering because she attacked Obama. Let’s have you stop and admit now that was a terrible misreading (if you read it at all) of what I said. Like fluffy said this is classic John: throw up slop, get busted throwing it; change the goalposts.

                  Let’s stick to this before we move on: that was a goofy misreading of my post, right?

                  1. How is giving a bad answer to a question pandering? That doesn’t make any sense. Pandering means saying things you don’t believe to appeal to people’s emotions or base instincts. Not answering a question in an interview is not that. Once again, give some examples or admit you are wrong. And no changing the subject and calling me names does not count

              2. “There are 57 states” “Austrians speak Austrian”. Is Obama a panderer?

                1. When you are afraid to name one magazine or father because you are worried about what people will think, that is pandering (do you actually think she could not name a single magazine? hell, that would be worse!).

                  When you say “57 states” you’ve misspoke (after all, who would you be pandering to in sayin that?).

                  You’re a terrible thinker John.

                  1. So at best you have one statement Dom an interview three years ago and that makes her a panderer of the worst sort? That is pathetic.

                  2. You think one answer in an interview three years ago makes her “praragon of pandering for the entire time since her nomination” and I am the terrible thinker? Really MNG? Is someone spoofing you trying to make you look foolish?

                    1. “pay their fair share”
                      “millionaires and billionaires”

                      Yep, no pandering there!

  23. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with unapologetic political bias

    What?! It’s the whole damned problem, Nick. It’s why we have legions of people running around with thin little ideological playbooks thinking they have all the answers to life’s mysteries, and never EVER considering a solution outside their precioussssssss book.

    Note how you can replace “ideological” in the above line with “theological” and it still works.

    I can’t even get most people to recognize that a solution that works in Muncie might not produce the same results in downtown Miami. People need to be flexible and open minded. Politcial bias (in practice) shoots open minds dead.

    1. In practice, there is no distinction whatsoever between “pragmatism” and statism.

      So basically you’re saying that the whole damn problem is that there are people in the world who insist on opposing statism.

      Quelle surprise.

  24. “By the time one reaches her age, mere curiosity should give a person a more complete world view.”

    Praytell, RA, tell us how Palin’s world view is lacking. Did MSNBC tell you so?

    But can you do so in proper English, please. I know sophisticates like yourself prefer to parlay in Francais.

    Here’s a clue for you all: we’re all idiots; we’re all mired in our own worldviews. Can we stop this nonsense about having a president with the travel miles of a James Bond?

    The job of US politicians is to define and limit the role of the citizen and its relationship with the government.

  25. and here I thought the job of the politicians is to run society.

  26. Her quick retreat from the Alaska governor’s mansion, which she quit after serving barely half a term, was punctuated by the most bizarre and self-pitying exit speech since Richard Nixon promised in 1962, after losing the California governor’s race, that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore.

    Well, there’s a difference: She’s much prettier than Nixon.

    1. And she has jiggly bits in all the right places.

      Gotta love those jiggly bits!

  27. *sigh* yet another Palin article to bring out the long knives page hits.

  28. When the left denounces those who claim the child is not Palin’s then I’ll denounce those who don’t believe Obama is a citizen.
    I normally use that line for those who still claim bush stole the election in 2000

  29. Nock we cpmplained about this the last time you posted it. What was the supposed error in judgement in trying to fire the ex brother in law? That guy shoulld have been fired. Why are you standing up for a cop who drives drunk, beats up his kids, and threatens to shoot his father in law all while on the job? Do we need to sick Radley on you?

    1. The error in judgment is intervening in a civil service matter based on your relationship to someone connected to the matter.

      Governors just don’t get to say, “You dick, you were mean to my sister, I’m going to take her side and see to it that you lose your job.”

      As soon as you have any personal connection to this kind of dispute AT ALL, any involvement on your part is an abuse of power.

      1. True. But is intervening where you shouldn’t in order to fire some nasty cop much of a sin? A sin sure. But probably much less of one than those committed by Governors like every day on this country

      2. If Sarah saw a psycho with a badge, one not related to her by marriage, terrorizing his family on the job, then she would be a hero to take an interest. The guy wasn’t “mean to her sister”. It’s a scandal he’s not behind bars. You can’t honestly think that cops should be able to taze a governor’s 10 year old nephew, because the governor’s family is fair game, as it’s abuse of power for the governor or her friends to object. Yes he’s been given a get out of jail free card.

  30. Perry bombs, Romney wins, nothing changes.
    http://www.sixwordsorless.net

  31. Oh, and BTW….John vs. MNG is boring and takes up alot of space. Can we accept that they’re both wrong when they fight and thus delete the posts.

    1. It is my fault. I should ignore him. He comes in and throws out a bunch of invective and I bother to respond when none of it is really worth responding to. But even if I ignore him I doubt he would go unchallenged. So my not responding wouldn’t change anything beyond the names on the posts

      1. The level at which you two bicker does make me wonder if you’re married.

        1. it’s more of a Spock/Evil Spock thing. But who wears the beard?

  32. I’m really not a fan of the woman, but pretty much every smear, accusation, and intimation of political and personal impropriety that leftists throw at her is made of unicorn crap. I don’t give two shits about whether she participates in gang-bangs with Samoan men, covers family history, or hates “faggots” in the privacy of her mind. When you’re considering people for office, you analyze:

    1) their political views and the way they intend to make policy/ what policy they intend to make when in office, and

    2) whether their political history suggests they’re reliable/consistent/principled.

    Who fucking cares if she screwed up in a Katie fucking Couric interview? Who, apart from shitheaded liberals with too much time on their hands and too much necrosis in their frontal lobes, gives a shit? Here’s a clue: the same fuckheads that think Ron Paul can’t possibly be a serious presidential contender because he (a) slouches and doesn’t look like Superman, (b) sounds, apparently, like “the crazy uncle in the attic”, and/or (c) because TEXAS OOMGGGGGGGGGG, NOT TEXAS!!!!!!!! HE PROBABLY HATES BLACK CHILDREN AND HOMOSEXULS

    Get the fuck over yourself, leftists. You can dump all over her all you want for her positions, because you disagree with them, absolutely, but resorting to this is just additional demonstration (as if we needed any) that you’re either (a) full of shit, or (b) delusional, or (c) both.

    1. *yourselves — way to make a point, RPA, you moron

    2. That is why Palin is in some ways important. It is not that she has important or new ideas. It is the opposite. Palin is important because she is such mainstream average politician but is treated like a complete pariah by the media and liberals that she is important. She has no less right to claim to want to be a part of the national dialog or run for national office than Romney or Huntsman or anyone else. In destroying Palin the media is reaffirming it’s role in choosing who is considered a serious person and who is not. And that is bullshit. And further it is that power of the media that allows them to ignore people like Johnson and Paul. Libertarians do themselves no favors by jumping on the Palin hate bandwagon. They don’t have to like her or support her. But they ought to try and not let the hit job stock because if they can spit toPalin they can do it to anyone

      1. Palin’s so noteworthy because her case is one of the clearest, most evident demonstrations of (1) just how unbelievably full of shit leftists are, and (2) how low they’ll stoop. Fuck them, seriously.

      2. Why should I care what the media and liberals think about a mainstream, non-Libertarian Team Red candidate? We all know the media is biased towards the Left and that she was treated “unfairly” if that’s in proportion to other mainstream, non-Libertarian candidates.

        That doesn’t mean we can’t hate her policies or her Nixonian paranoia, and it also doesn’t mean that the media’s attacks on her can be reduced to meaningless partisanship. She would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and with McCain’s age, it’s hard not to be worried when she can’t seem to name an important Supreme Court case.

        1. “Nixonian paranoia”

          Nixon was driven out of office by the Media; he wasn’t paranoid; he recognized reality. Compare to how Clinton, whose transgressions dwarfed Nixon’s, was protected and kept in office with the assistance of the Media.

          1. Yeah, but Clinton was the original First Black President, so he kinda HAD to be protected!

  33. You know who else went rogue?

    1. The Grand Army of the Republic when the Supreme Chancellor executes Order 66, thereby ensuring the near-extinction of the Jedi Order and fucking shit up in the entire galaxy for generations to come?

      1. The Grand Army of the Republic when the Supreme Chancellor executes Order 66, thereby ensuring the near-extinction of the Jedi Order and fucking shit up in the entire galaxy for a few decades, at best?

        FTFY

  34. whether she participates in gang-bangs with Samoan men

    Does she have gangbangs with Gingers? Please of please let it be yes!!!! And please oh please god let there be video.

  35. It’s unthinkable that this Palin would stand up to her base and say somehting to anger them the way Obama has done since becoming President.

    I’m gonna need some examples, MNG. I don’t much care what lefty progs think, so I’m pretty much drawing a blank on what Obama has actually stood up and said (instead of the promises he has broken) that has pissed off his base.

    1. Well [h]er entire recent career since the nomination has been a paragon of pandering because she didn’t name the newspapers she read in an interview. So there is that.

      1. She also has breasts and a vagina, which means she’s even ickier, because how could a WOMAN be a CONSERVATIVE? After all, conservatives are backwards, racist, homophobic, stupid, fascist, and misogynistic — she’s obviously a self-hating lady who needs to be ridiculed to oblivion!

        1. I guess that is what it is. Liberals just can’t help themselves. “A paragon of pandering”? Really? Jesus Christ, the women wrote a book and has a FaceBook page. I cannot for the life of me understand why she warrants such over the top rhetoric.

          The Bush hatred you could understand. He was President for eight years and necessarily did somethings that made people angry and people go emotional about. A lot of it was totally over the top and crazy. But I can at least understand why people got so over the top about Bush. But Palin is not President. She has never held national office. And liberals are more deranged in their feelings about her than they were about Bush who as President for 8 years.

      2. adn u tell me that i ad no sustance to the discushon palen make the wnignuts fome lol were r those [JOBZ] at lol

        1. other than “to” and “the”, there isn’t an actual word in your post. Again, we can’t respond to things that are not written in English. The occasional typographical error is okay. But you have to work with us here. It has to be written in English or we can’t include you in the conversation.

  36. This is strange – did like half the names on this page just disappear for anyone else?

    1. Try turning on Javascript.

      1. It’s working now. I guess my Javascript conked out inexplicably for a minute.

  37. Besides the various Libertarian candidates through the years, has there been a “mainstream” Republican politician that has denounced crony capitalism as much as Palin has in recent speeches?

    Maybe there has been but IMHO this is what differentiates her from someone like McCain, Romney, etc.

  38. I see the comments concentrate on Palin some pro others as usual con. How about Mr. Nick Gillespie and his so not biased view of Palin? The left which collapsed in oblivion when the Soviets gave up and espoused the Rusian identity is so alife in the not so US of A. I think Mr. Gillespie should concentrate in co-authoring there is always a chance the people he chooses to do so with may temper the naive ideas he has. No I am not an American and have little interest in Palin, but I cannot believe the hate towards women in general you Americans have.

  39. They should have called the book “Dreams of my Neighbor” – uncredited, baseless acusations are nothing new, but with a sub-title of “Searching for the Real Sarah Palin” one expects some answers, not speculation of the following type: “It would be really bad if it were ever learned that Joe McGinniss killed his high school sweetheart and had sex with her lifeless body for days before disposing of it on a road side.” Notice how I didn’t actually accuse Mr. McGinniss of anything, I just said it would be bad if such a thing were true…

  40. Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
    Cheap UGG Boots http://www.classicuggs-uk.com —– ercai

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.