Dana Milbank: "I'm declaring February a Palin-free month. Join me!"
 

I'm declaring February a Palin-free month. Join me!

I, for one, am with Dana Milbank. I'd like to learn Portuguese and Euclidean geometry instead of simply reaffirming for the millionth time that Sarah Palin is an attention-hungry fool. Talking about one more Palin story adds nothing to the national dialog, solves no problems, and generally just wastes everyone's time. Short of some truly new or different information, talking about her only serves to feed the troll, and as internet forum savvy as I have likely become in over 6 years of TFP and others, I know it's never a good idea to feed the troll.

So who else is down for taking a step back and re-prioritizing your political interests to phase out Sarah Palin, at least for the month of February? I'm hoping CNN, MSNBC, and other major media outlets will get in on this, too.

I plan on creating one new Sarah Palin thread every day in February - just to test your sincerity. The obsession, whether good or bad, which people have over her is pathetic.

And to prove their obsession is "pathetic" you're going to start a new thread about her everyday? Umm, yeah that makes sense.

No, I'm obsessed with proving how silly this is...and I'm not actually going to do it. Sheesh.

Knock yourself out, sounds silly to me. But so does reporting every time she posts a new face book update. Bottom line is the major new outlets can stop reporting on her all they want, her audience isn't there anyway. She sticks to Fox and the net as her outlet, she's not really trying to gain support rather rally existing support.

Wish we could declare a Palin-Free decade.

Trolling is against TFP rules.

He changed his response to my post to include "...and I'm not actually going to do it. Sheesh." So I see no possible future trolling to worry about. Plus only after he created a thread could it be determined whether or not it's trolling. With the amount of "news" Ms. Palin generates he could very likely create a valid thread every day.

Weird.

My months are always Sara Palin free, as they are also Glen Beck free, and Rush Limbaugh free.

It's not much different for me than any other brand. I know it exists, and I sometimes hear about features and debacles, but for the most part, if it wasn't for the headline itself, I'd probably not ever know about it.

It'd be different if we were were talking about Paris Hilton instead of Sarah Palin. Hilton doesn't have much of an impact on the fate of American politics.

I've noticed that the more Sarah Palin there is in the news, the less Ann Coulter we get. I'm not sure if the tradeoff is worth it, however.

I wish there was a contemporary, PC alternative for "Tar Baby" because that's what iconic reality stars like Palin are. You are drawn to them for the spectacle but can't pull yourself off of them and the more you poke at them the more you get stuck.

These days I'm going with "Tar Pit": a tourist attraction that is fascinating but all devouring.

I'm sensing a general pull away from her on a broader level than just her haters these days. I think the crosshairs surveyors mark controversy pushed this a bit, but what I really think she's suffering from is market saturation and a lack of new "content" and Washington activity.

The Republicans have some clout again yet she's not truly part of it. She's competing with other pundits now more than the President.

Trolling??? You have GOT to be kidding me. This entire thread is a troll! There's no room for discussion here. It's your declaration to ignore another human for a month, and you asking others to do so. That's not a thread. It's a troll.

Good for you, Will. "Knock yourself out". Wait, is that violent rhetoric? Murder in discourse? Meh, Tully said it first.

i prefer my reality show characters less packaged. that's why i go for celebrity rehab.

i think it would be interesting to organize a consumer boycott of all cable "news" outlets, starting of course with fox. let them go white. like a blister in the sun. and so forth.

I think you guys need to look up what "troll" means.

Yeah, well, I thought I knew until Will accused me of it.

If Sarah Palin expects to be a national leader, she needs to stop whining that everyone is picking on her.

And stop with the ignorant notion that criticism of her remarks is somehow an infringement of her right to free speech.

The same for her followers here....when she suggests that liberals are enemies of the country, or mischaracterizing the health care law or tweeting other inflammatory statements, others have a right to criticize her.

It's not very "leader like" to run around yelling "why is everybody always picking on me?" Wonder how people would resound if Obama spent anytime bitching about how the "birthers" won't leave him alone?

Palin prefers classifying criticism as infringements rather than addressing them. She prefers softball interviews on Fox News and using the vehicle of social media to avoid the prying of the "lamestream" media.

She prefers these things because it sidesteps her responsibility to own up to her methods, and they provide a smokescreen to protect her positions from those who oppose them. No, this isn't characteristic of a national leader...but what characteristics of leadership did George W. Bush have before his two terms as president?

We don't need a Palin-free month. We need to demand the real journalists out there to keep doing what they're supposed to do. They need to keep doing their jobs despite the other noise that goes on.

Absolutely.

When Palin goes on Hannity's show and complains that her critics want to "shut up dissent" and thus "destroy our Republican"....she needs to be taken to task for her ignorance of what free speech is all about.

Yeah, I kind of feel Milbanks move was a cop out. Instead of standing to her and reporting the facts he's simply shying away from the whole issue. As you stated previously- it's not like she's Paris Hilton and has no effect on the political climate of the country. She has a rather larger following and thus reporters ignoring her really makes no sense.

Some perspective
 

The thing about Palin is that she has a high profile for a number of reasons. A big reason is that she came from nowhere (well, Alaska) to become a candidate for the vice presidency. She came to the spotlight at a time when the Tea Party came into the spotlight. She has essentially aligned herself with them, and so you get this individual who has popularity, has a high media profile, and is supporting a high-profile political movement during a high-profile economic/political upheaval in the U.S.

Also, take a look at the recent poll numbers regarding support for the GOP presidential nomination:
I fail to see how Palin truly matters so little that we should stop talking about her for a month. I can see this as a personal exercise in your own relationship with consuming and publishing within the media, but I don't see the wider application within the public and within the practices of the media.

If anything, most of the attention she gets is deserved. If anything, Huckabee and Romney should be getting more attention than they are. But the thing to understand is that this isn't just about political positions and plans for the presidency; it's also about how you communicate that and engage in the political environment.

Palin's methods get her a lot of attention. To look away is like looking away from a train wreck. Well, maybe it's more like looking away from a runaway train that just might wreck itself.... Should we look away from that?

One month...I would say she has nothing more important to say than any other citizen until 2012.

Sarah Palin doesn't actually produce anything but hot air for the empty balloon that is the political media apparatus. Ignoring her for a month would be a useful reminder of how little she actually matters to the vast majority of people.

Within minutes after the AZ shootings were being widely reported in the media, Palin stated that her phone and her husbands phone started ringing asking her for some kind of reaction, then the media used her "target" map as evidence of how the use of supposedly violent imaging contributes to people prone to violence going over the edge. Palin did not volunteer to be thrust into the middle of the AZ controversy, media outlets were beside themselves to inject her into it and I would argue for their ratings.

Millions of Youtube videos get posted every day, almost all get no mass attention, when Palin posted hers, I was interested because I am a fan and supporter, there was absolutely no reason for anyone else to view it, nor make it national news for the weeks that followed.

I watched the Fox News interview because I was a fan and supporter, there was absolutely no reason for anyone else to watch the interview.

I simply wonder why all the pretense? If I thought she was ignorant/idiot/insignificant/out of touch/media whore/or whatever, I wouldn't think twice about what she had to say, why do you folks care?

As it stands today Palin would be a fringe candidate in the Republican Party and if she did pull off a miracle and get the nomination she would be going up against a President with a very high popularity rating even during a deep recession, during war, with a 9% unemployment rate. Obama is also moving to the middle, he has a Republican House that he can blame problems on so his popularity is likely to go up - that as a given why even worry about Palin? I don't get it, can anyone please explain this...before 1/31/2011?

palin is a fringe far right candidate.
there's nothing to explain.

I disagree, explanation is needed. On TFP-Politics, lately, there has been more interest in Palin than any other topic. I understand why I am interested and comment, why do you? Is it typical for you and others to waste time and effort on what is "fringe", if so why?

ace, are you saying that Palin's YouTube production and the Hannity interview were meant to be featured as a part of the Sarah Palin Fan Club™?

Yes. We have been through this in another thread. She has no interest in appealing to a broad audience - she says and does what she believes is the right thing to do and say. She is not "political", the way many professional and polished politicians are and believe they have to be. If at the end of all this her popularity is 1%, it would not bother her.

But you have not addressed my questions.

I think my head asplode.

Palin has said as recently as a month or so ago that she is considering running for President....and that she believes she can beat Obama.

That makes her newsworthy and a person of interest in any political discussion....despite her increasingly higher negatives each time she opens her mouth.

She's been a whiner since her first flubbed interview with Katie Curic at the start of the last campaign.

And yet, the aces of the world still see her as a victim...go figure.

I just watched the whole Curic interview again and kept thinking "Wow, this person was really almost a heart beat away from the oval office?!?!" Just plain freaking scary. I really would not be interested in her at all if she didn't manage to get so many people to support her, the major issues she had no clue about is simply staggering.

ok then...let's think about this, shall we. putting aside ace's bizarre-o take on things as a first step of course. the right has a brand identity problem. almost every aspect of their ideology has been pulverized by the realities that conservative ideology hath wrought. confronted with a clinton-style centrist in obama, they reverted to clinton-period form and began to systematically lie about obama's politics. because that's how those paragons of personal responsibility roll. when they're in trouble strategically, start lying. do it early and often. lather rinse repeat. you know the drill. thanks to the conservative-dominated supreme court decision that corporate persons are people too and that those person's free speech "rights" are compromised by campaign limits, and thanks to infighting amongst the reactionary set which presumably didn't find michael steele to be fascist enough, the tea party way born.

palin (tm) is simply a figure-head used by the right to keep the teabaggers mobilized.
this as the momentum they putatively had going into the last elections was dissipated by reality--the tea party elected versions of the same old same old reagan-period milty-freidmany degenerates. and the money people wouldn't have it any other way.

so palin (tm) is never going to get elected president. she knows it. you know it. everyone except maybe aceventura knows it.

she's making bank being a shill for the republican establishment. her function is to help them maintain such grassroots energy as there is amongst the neo-fascist tea party set.

the people who run the show on the right know that the worst thing they could do to themselves is let palin run for anything.

insofar as the tucson shooting were concerned, the only reason i was interested at all in what sarah palin (tm) had to say was a function of what a debacle it was. i thought it was funny. i still think it's funny.

what it reveals, however, is more interesting: the right can't respond. if they loose initiative in a news cycle environment, they collapse. they are only adapted to the funhouse where their's are the only voices. this is a very basic weakness. the way to adapt to that would be to impose an authoritarian media environment.

conservative incompetence should save us from that.

I think this sums up well the current situation the right faces. If they know any better, they know that Obama's taking a page out of Clinton's book of politics is going to cause them serious problems with regard to how the public views Democratic vs. Republican perceptions of effective governance, especially with regard to the economy from 2008 and onward.

So you have Democrats in power having done what they could to prevent an economic collapse now trying to do what they can to steer the ship to gentler waters. However, with the recent surge in Republican power, the GOP has an opportunity to either a) enable Obama as a Clinton-style centrist appropriator or b) become obstructionists in both communication (media propaganda) and practice (stop or undo Democrat initiatives). Unfortunately, the way the Republicans (as you would say, comrade) "roll" is to be destructive rather than above board. I guess they too learned from Clinton's playbook and wish not to let that sort of thing happen again. It's just unfortunate that the only alternative seems to be steeped in reactionary politics.

I think the so-called obsession over Palin is more a concern over a wider scope of American politics. It's not just about Palin; it's about Palin, the Tea Party movement, the Republicans doing their best to raise Reagan from the dead. It's an interest in watching how neocon neolibs flail about with this recent economic upheaval and the political fallout thereafter.

I'm disappointed in American conservatism these days. Do you think it's maybe because it's shifted too far right and has left too much of the "conservative proper" behind?

As a contrast, just recently, PM Harper marked his fifth year as a minority leader. It's the longest minority government in Canadian history. There are a number of factors at play as to why this has happened. Minority governments don't normally last very long, most often not even lasting a full four-year term. Harper's staying power, however, has a lot to do with being a shrewd politician. He happens to be intelligent and knows how to play the limits to get what he wants within what's reasonable given the political environment.

Canadian conservatism differs from American conservatism in that no matter how crazy Canadian conservatives might appear to be, they always seem to be rooted in reason and accountability. Although I disagree with their politics, I must say I respect their approach to politics. They're not perfect, and they often do things that I strongly disagree with, but at least they do it in such a way that doesn't test my perceptions of reality.

As a Canadian, what I see in the U.S. has entertainment value. The kind of shit that happens south of the border just doesn't happen here. I do primarily have an interest in American politics, given that America plays such a huge role in Canadians lives; however, I tend to see much of what goes on and watch as though it were some kind of reality show.

If you asked me the question, I would respond the same way. It should not surprise anyone that Palin would keep her options open. And if a person like Palin, believes Obama is wrong for the future of the country, of course that person would believe they can win by making their case. But, your response is diversionary, there are scores of people considering a run for President who have a stronger resume than Palin - not to mention the need to over come a resignation from political office.

Come now, there is more to this. You don't talk about Chuck Baldwin of the Green Party, isn't he is going to run?

I think many of you fear Palin. I think many of you realize that she is a serious contender who can actually pull it off. I think her strategy borders on genius. She is developing a solid foundation of die-hard supporters, like me. There is a level of enthusiasm for her candidacy that I have not had since I was in college. If she can leverage her die-hard core she might just pull it off, although it is a long-shot. but as long as she is in it, I am with her and if she decides to just enjoy life in AK I would still be proud having supported and defended her.

Look at it this way - if you go around poking a rattle snake with a stick, and the rattle snake bites - who is the victim?

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

What I find amazing, and what I respect is not where she started but where she is now and how she has grown. The woman is a winner. To go from being a mom from Wasila, to being in the national lime light overnight with no credential or special training, support or coaching is amazing. It takes special character to come back from that interview the way she did. It takes something else special to basically end her political career by resigning as Governor, to still be feared as contender for President. It is truly amazing, and then to think people need to make special proclamations to stop talking about her....???

Come on. Nobody fears a Palin candidacy.

Obama keeps Tea Party people mobilized. With or without Palin the Tea Party will be a force for the next election. Also Palin hitched her wagon to the Tea Party (based on a shared view on the issues), not the other way around. Anyone paying attention would know that.

Dude, i assumed she retired from politics when she resigned as Governor. I thought her plan was to sell some books and make speeches here and there. I also felt that she earned the right to profit from her notoriety given the viciousness of the attacks against her. And even now I think the odds of her becoming President are pretty small. It would take a little effort to understand the difference between the level of enthusiasm I would have for her running and what I would actually expect.

This statement clearly illustrates a lack of understanding of what is going on in the Republican Party. The Republican party establishment sees Palin like Superman sees kryptonite. I don't think you know what you are talking about on this issue.

ace....you're tripping all over yourself to defend Palin's victim mentality.

Comparing her to yourself and/or a Green Party candidate running for President? Neither you nor Chuck were a VP candidate for a major political party.

Then, in the next breath, you suggest she is a serious contender. So is she like Chuck Baldwin or is she a serious contender. You cant have it both ways, ace.

As to her need to overcome a resignation from public office, focusing on improving one's understanding of, and ability to articulate, public policy issues would have been more effective than becoming a shallow talking head....not writing your top three national policy issues on your hand..or complaining incessantly about the so-called media elite out to get you.

The reason I don't routinely comment on Ralph Nader is because I don't take him seriously. The reason I routinely comment on Obama is because I fear what he will do. That is me. Like I said I don't understand the rest of you, it make no sense to me and so far no one has made any type of a serious attempt to explain it in a manner that a simple guy like me can comprehend. Do I need a secrete decoder ring?

ace....so you are moving away from the comparison to Chuck Baldwin while suggesting at the same time that "I think many of you realize that she is a serious contender who can actually pull it off"....to Ralph Nader, who was a serious candidate at one time and was covered by the press accordingly, making the case for media coverage of Palin.

More tripping, ace.

I do see one potential Nader comparison.

If the Republicans nominate someone like Romney or a similar corporate conservative rather than a Huckabee or a hardcore social conservative, then the possibility of Palin as a third party, Tea Party, candidate becomes possible....given that she has suggested she would consider running as a third party candidate...which, again, makes her newsworthy.

She has two choices....either come out and say NO and I am not running for President under any circumstances and make the big bucks selling books or step up and act like a potential candidate and not a victim continually sniping from behind facebook and twitter or on Hannity's (her best bud) show.

You can call her what you want. I just point out the obvious and ask that you give some thought to what/who you actually consider as a "victim". In my analogy if you did not get it, the rattle snake would not consider himself a victim. And it is in the nature of the rattle snake to strike in defense. If you poke at Palin, she is gonna strike back. If you want her to go away, stop poking her with your stick.

How many losing VP candidates go on to make a serious run for President? Let's have an adult discussion, your point is again diversionary.

I repeat. Palin is a fringe candidate. I support her 100%. I believe that she could win. It is a long-shot bordering on miraculous if she pulled it off. She is keeping her options open. She does not care about mass popularity. She talks to a core base of enthusiastic supporters like me. As a strategy, if she pulls it off, would be pure political genius. If she chooses not to run, she has lost nothing.

I heard Jimmy "The rent is too damn high" is running for President are you offering him your sage advise too? What is the difference that warrants Palin getting your attention but not Jimmy, that is my fundamental question. Can I get a direct thoughtful answer? I suppose not, so I draw my own conclusion and I think you fear Palin for some reason.

ace...frivolous questions from one with such blind fealty dont deserve thoughtful responses.

I suspect you would likely just twist and turn the direction of the discussion again...your trademark!

My opinion. Like I said I am a fan, I know why I comment about her, why do you? Do you take her seriously? Do you think she is more than a fringe candidate? Obliviously you do based on your responses here.

O.k. then stop worrying about my opinion and tell me yours. Start with why do you care about Palin? Why do you bother with her?

In my opinion Palin will not be a third party candidate. I see nothing that would indicate she has ever given that serious thought.

She has the same choices as anyone else, I don't get your point. Is the issue that you resent that Palin has options beyond what you presented above?

---------- Post added at 12:04 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:57 PM ----------

Of course my questions are frivolous, otherwise you would not be engaging me. I see a pattern. That aside, and even if you don't care and it is not about you in particular, I am really trying to understand the Palin phenomenon with people who don't like her, don't think she is serious, and don't fear her. Why does a professional writer need to write about what she is not gonna write about, illustrated in the OP? Why does a poster here start a thread asking people to join along with a boycott of commenting on Palin - why not just stop? What are the dramatics about?

Sarah Palin says she'd consider running as a third-party candidate in the 2012 presidential elections.

When asked by conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson about such a strategy, she responded, "That depends on how things go in the next couple of years," adding, "If the Republican Party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there's not going to be a need for a third party, but I'll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years."

Palin considers third party run (w/audio) but success is unlikely - National populist | Examiner.com

As to further discussion with you, given that you are unwilling or unable to understand my explanation of why I believe she is deserved of media coverage and political discussions (she is not Chuck Baldwin, despite your lame comparison)..... and not a free pass to continually snipe behind her self-selected media outlets....Its not fear, ace. It is holding her accountable for her divisive words.

But as I said, given your blind fealty... there is no reason to continue.

I would rather read the latest Archie comic.

http://images.tfaw.com/covers_tfaw/400/no/nov100723.jpg

Barack Obama & Sarah Palin Clobber Archie & Reggie in Exclusive Preview - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Carry on, ace.

Edit: I misread. My goof.

ace, darling, i understand pretty well what's happening with the republican party.
it's easier to see when you aren't on your knees.
try it sometime.

that last post was over the line.

my apologies to ace & more generally.

i try not to allow exasperation to get the better of me, but sometimes i fall down.

She says what she believes and I agree with her most of the time. If you consider her words divisive, that is your issue. But, I am curious, how exactly would you hold her accountable? By hanging on to every word she says? By viewing every Youtube video she makes? By reading every Tweet she tweets? By reading every article she writes? By watching every interview she makes? By making pledges not to talk about her in February??? You folks have made yourselves perfectly unclear.

I am gonna not talk about Jessie Jackson next month.:confused:

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Palin went against the party establishment in Alaska. She went against the party establishment in her endorsement of Miller over Lisa "voter intent" Murkowski. The moment she was announced as VP candidate by McCain the party establishment was in shock. She has virtually no party establishment support inside the Washington belt way. She actually has net negatives among Republicans in polls, if you believe or give them credibility (which I don't). Perhaps, you can explain or elaborate on the comment you made.

Will,

I owe you an apology. After reading this thread, I have decided to join you and Dana. :)

No apology necessary, we just have different views. I suspect we'll still have plenty to butt heads on this month. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you misunderstand. If "talking about Sarah Palin" means regurgitating the tired, old argument and counter argument presented in this thread...I'm all for "Palin fasting". No offense to those participating. :)

Palin's PAC, SarahPAC is second only to Romney's PAC, Free &Strong AmericaPAC, among potential candidates for 2012.

That makes them players....whether either or both run or not.

But no, ace. I am still dont fear her.

I fear her being elected.

there's a lot of interesting stuff happening in the world---you know, that place that's not really covered by the american press.
and the past 24 hours have revealed pretty clearly---as if it were necessary---the accuracy of referring to the united states as a single party state with two right wings, and this not only because obama has decided to take the gloves off and dive into being a moderate republican, but also by way of the tepid responses from the united states to what's happening in egypt.

so far as the tea party is concerned, if they keep talking to audiences that do not accept their reality-optional approach, they'll destroy themselves quick-like:

Michele Bachmann's Tea Party overdrive mocked for Obama response | World news | The Guardian

speaks for itself.

Wow.... let me tell you...wow! :oogle:

Maybe a Tea Party–free month?

I see a Palin-Bachmann ticket in the making.

Dammit, that would be the best show on earth!

I don't dispute she is a "player", there are many "players" that are not going to run for President or have a realistic shot at winning. The more important question is what kind of power does she have or can she actually make a difference. And as I have communicated many times here and in other threads, Palin speaks to her base and her base already believes what we believe. When McCain picked her for VP on his ticket, he needed the Palin base to get energized - it worked but he lost independents due to the "financial crisis".

Although I will not support Romney in the primaries, he actually has a realistic shot at being the Republican Party nominee and a shot at beating Obama.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

A few times I have tried to emphasize the point that I don't fear certain people getting elected because the odds of it happening are so small it is not worth the concern. Do you think she could seriously threaten Obama in a general election? Do you think she has more than a long-shot chance of winning the Republican Party Nomination? If she runs as a third party candidate do you think that would hurt Obama or could possibly win? If the answers are no, why the concern? Like I have been stating, I just don't get it.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Were you one of the folks trumpeting the end of the Republican party in 2008/09?

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Isn't it interesting that, at least based on my non-scientific observations, that a telecast meant for the internet targeting a faction of the Tea Party (who is the Tea Party Express anyway) gets just as much discussion in the media as a Presidential address to the world outlining his views of the state of the US and plans for the future?

Even here, we are not discussing an energy policy, war, global warming, governmental financial crises around the globe, growing political instability and a few important things specific to the US like unemployment, immigration, social security, health care costs going through the roof still, etc, etc, so if we stop talking about Palin and the Tea Party, what will we discuss?

{added}I stand corrected, there is a thread on Egypt and Tunisia.


---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

Would be better than Obama's empty happy talk.

I have never understood the hype or hate behind Palin. I do not believe she is the fool Liberals make her out to be, but I also do not believe she is the hero conservatives hope for. She seems to be aware of the issues, but has not shown herself to be a viable candidate for anything more than a TV show, nor has she shown herself to be tough enough for the office she held or the office people hope she will gain.

I can actually see the concern people have on both sides in respect to Palin becoming president. She is really not qualified for the presidency, and we now have a track record of electing such individuals.

For the record; I am a Libertarian, and I have attended a few tea party rallies. The first ones in 2009.

I think the concept of being "qualified" has never been defined and if we did come up with some objective threshold, I think it would even then be over-rated in terms of a President governing. Outside of being a functional adult all I need is honesty, ability to listen, strong core beliefs and a willingness to make decisions even if they are not popular. The real work of governing does not occur in the office of the President. Leadership is key for a President and that is a skill not learned at Harvard or other institutions of higher learning.

I should have said, 'In my opinion."
I agree with your point, but I believe a candidate for the presidency should have a proven track record of leadership and have shown some tangible results as an executive in the private sector. The attributes you listed are indeed crucial, but you also need to have the ability to follow through until the project is complete.
When Palin stepped down as Governor that was the end of her career as a leader, imo. I understand the reasoning behind her leaving, but that does not excuse the action.
I would also like to add that I think it would be a very selfish move if she were to decide to run for the office. There is no way she can win, and it would only distract from the viable candidates.

Democrats would be wise to back off of Palin for a while and let her regain some support in the next year, then CRUSH HER! But please don't. Call her all the names you can think of.

because what makes a good president of the united states is a lack of education coupled with a steaming pile of good ole class resentment served up petit-bourgeois victim style, preferably with american flags and vague bromides a plenty. that way the evil others can persecute the heroic but not real bright president and attention can be directed to that while the american system tanks altogether.
but what matters is that the reality-optional conservative set have an empty suit they can admire on the way down. that's key.

but what really matters is that the system tank in a regulatory environment that allows the people who bought and paid for the reality-optional sets astroturf political feel-good movement are not required to give up any of their shit.

so when the new feudalism comes and members of the reality-optional conservative set returns to their usual existential position as serf, they'll have idiot conservative lords they admire and memories of flags and bromides aplenty.

because that's what really matters. no competence, not knowledge, not ability. what matters is that the eternal victims have an Empty and Not-Real-Bright Leader that's just like they imagine themselves to be. someone they can look up to. someone they admire.

that's key.

I tend to agree, when she resigned I did not think she would ever be a serious candidate for President and I generally don't like when people quit a fight - but the way Palin characterized the issue in terms of "reloading" I understood. And even if she chooses not to run, she is following through on her pledge to work on her agenda, and I think her decision has proven to be very effective even if she never runs for political office in the future.

I think Palin stepped down as Alaska's Gov be cause she needed cash to fight legal battles she got herself into while Gov. Plus she wanted to cash in while the iron was still hot. Going back to Alaska and doing the state business would not have been nearly as profitable has putting her name on a couple of ghost written, lie riddled books.

I simply have a broader view of leadership than what you present. My study of great historical leaders, political and otherwise, indicates an emphasis on functional education rather than formal education. And even in the cases of exceptional I.Q. or formal education the ability to lead was more directly related to simplicity and an appeal to base emotion.

Systems are rarely the cause of a cultural or civilization's decline. In my study it has had more to do with the abuse of a system. So, if you argue that a failed system is one that is subject to abuse - I can see your point. Otherwise, I do not believe that it is possible to have a system that can not be subject to abuse or some other form of breakdown under certain conditions.

Yet, you fail to present an alternative. What is a better system? Who would you support running that system? It is far to easy for you to sit back and do what you do without taking an intellectual risk. That is something I do get.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

Why would you read her books? Or...did you read them...:orly:

The gambit has been sprung:eek: You either secretly admire and support Palin or waste your time reading her books. Or, you don't read her books and you rely on the regergitated musing of people with an agenda and are being used.:shakehead:

Which is it?

What kind of logic is that? I've read Mein Kampf too, doesn't mean I secretly "admire" Hitler. I've read Going Rogue and it's full of logic just like you used here with several out and out lies mixed in. Why you admire and respect a proven liar is not my problem it's yours.

Why did you read it? A simple question. If you answer the question you will understand the point.

Give an example of a lie in the book.

Again, give specifics...if you can...if you can support your claims. It is simple. Instead of addressing specifics we play games with ad-hominem attacks.

I have not read any book written by Obama and I never will because I thinks his rhetoric is empty and he is and has been politically motivated. Given what has been said about Palin and the fact that you don't even think she wrote anything opens your comments up to question. It is not my logic that is of concern, rather your lack of clarity - so again, which is it - was it just an exercise in you wasting your time? If so, why?

And, I am still trying to understand this thread. If you folks don't want to discuss Palin - stop. Why do we need an announcement? Why the theatrics? Why put so much energy into a person you don't even think can write her own life story.

You folks put yourselves into a logical trap and apparently don't even know it. But, yes, yes, yes, I know, I am the one with the problem. Got it.

I read a lot of things. I read the Turner Diaries several years before the Oklahoma City bombing. Using your logic that makes me a racists.

I could give you example, you'd make excuses... lets just save time. St. Sarah walks on water.

And yes you do have a problem. Your post in this thread alone show a complete inability to understand or process even basic logic. I mean seriously read what you wrote-

If I read something that contains theories or ideas I disagree with I'm wasting my time. What kind of logic is that?

Unsound.

I have not asked what you have read, I asked you why. There is a difference. If you ask me why I read a controversial book I could tell you why.

That is your twisted logic. If you re-read what I wrote you may understand the issue better. One of the choices was a waste of time or support. If it was a book of lies, written by a ghost writer - you clearly wasted your time, why did you make that choice?

Make it about me, I have clearly stated I am a fan and supporter of Palin. I have also stated that her appeal has had nothing to do with her persuading me intellectually rather that we share similar points of view and that there is an emotional trigger. O.k., I put my issues on the table, your turn.

You can answer simple questions directly or you can make your responses about Ace. Been done thousands of times and never changes anything. You telling me I have a problem is a waste of your time and won't stop me from confronting what I think are inconsistencies and lack of clarity.



You could just state why you read the book. Or, you could say, yes, reading the book was a waste of my time and initially I thought there may have been value in reading the book. But you did not for some reason, why?

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

I have read many thing I disagree with, and I can tell you why I made the decision to read those things. I even read some things for pure joy or entertainment. The unsound comment is based on faulty assumptions you read into the questions presented. Now I question you - do you really not understand the point being made and you really believe based on what has actually been written, rather than faulty assumptions, what has been questioned has been done in a unsound manner? Is it possible that you don't understand? Is this all pretense for some other issue? It could be as simple as some here simply like making fun of and attacking Palin, if so why not say it.

I read opposing view points for many reasons. Often it's just to hear the other side of issues. In my opinion reading and listening to several sides on any issue is a good thing.

And if Palin has indeed mislead readers on a number of issues, I imagine it's a good thing to know about it, especially if her fans simply take such information at face value.

To tie this back in to the thread, it's this kind of thing that should make it obvious as to why it doesn't make sense to ignore the likes of Palin. If you have Palin and people like Bachman essentially communicating propaganda to the public, it's best to know about it and to know how wide and deep it runs.

To engage in political discourse, you need to know the issues, and you need to know what each faction is saying.

I think ignoring people like Palin and Bachman is a bad idea, because there many who listen to their every word.

Why did you read Palin's book? Is her point of view an opposing point of view or did she just lie? Why is it difficult to say that you think reading a book of lies is a waste of time? Was there actual value in reading her "opposing point of view"...oh I take that back..., her ghost writer's (according to you) point of view?

I suppose it was more of a ghost collaborator/co-author.

I'm not going to say I think "reading a book of lies is a waste of time" because I don't think that.

Ace your logic is completely lacking and done answering your questions. It's wasting my time and yours.

If?

What have you taken at face value based on what is in this thread?

With no specifics the above is pretty empty.

But, what would be the difference between Palin using "propaganda" and Obama using "propaganda"?

I can tell you that I pay attention to people with power and people I take very seriously. Most of the folks tap dance around the real issue - they fear Palin. Simple honesty is refreshing.

I don't engage issues or people I don't take seriously. And many of you confuse me on your responses to me, why waste time engaging Ace given all the problems he has.

{added} Have you notice that Ace has started to refer to himself in the third person? Wonder what that means?

There are people listening to every word from Louis Farrakhan he is generally ignored. There has to be more and we can't keep saying, paraphrasing, that she is an idiot and then say we can't ignore her.

It has become clear that the attacks against Palin are not about substance but more about undermining her credibility so less people will be inclined to want to listen to her. There is a real fear that her message actual may sell to a broader audience. Hence her strategy of keeping her options open and responding to every attack can prove to be very effective - and that is very ironic.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

What conclusion have you drawn from this information?

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------

Use your own words then.

I am not wasting my time, this has value to me. If you ask me what and why, I could give a honest, direct and understandable answer.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

"[Seniors and the disabled] will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

-Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7th, 2009, in a message posted on Facebook

I don't know. Motive? Why do you ask?

I don't think everyone fears Palin. However, I will suggest that those who do may very likely have a healthy fear.

If I'm confused about something I'm engaged with, I tend to want to understand it.

Farrakhan isn't a high-profile public figure associated with a high-profile political movement, nor is he considering a run for the highest office in the country as a former governor and vice-presidential nominee. I'm curious as to why you'd bring up Farrakhan. Do you consider Palin a kind of Farrakhan?

The attacks against Palin tend to be about her credibility with regard to her message. The irony I tend to see is that she tends to deflect this into some attack on her right to free speech if not something else. She fails to adequately respond to questions regarding her credibility. The interesting thing is that this seems to lead her supporters to believe that this strengthens it. Talk about irony.

That she had help with the writing process. Major publishers publishing major works tend not to want to publish substandard writing.

i really dont understand what argument you're trying to make ace.
you appear to think that reading about opposing viewpoints opens you up to some kind of contamination. so that if you read enough you get infected and next thing you know the disease is manifesting itself and you're attending tea party rallies.

but that's just crazy.

what it appears to be is a backhanded rationalization for your own refusal or inability to engage with any viewpoints that aren't like your own.

and this some imaginary "gambit" you've sprung...it's funny stuff.

Are you implying that those who attend tea parties have something wrong with them, or are you just making the point that reading opposing viewpoints does not necessarily change your own views, but merely strengthen your understanding of an entire issue? If it is the latter and you were just making a point--I agree. I believe you are only hurting your overall argument if you are implying the former.

Always the Palin advocate, but why? Thread after thread I've watched you for the past couple of years. I can understand that you can agree with her platform. But what I've never seen addressed in any of these threads is: Why Palin? The traits you claim to admire belong to multitudes of women. Admiration and respect don't bestow her with credibility. What exactly is it that puts her above other Republicans in your eyes, or even Republican women?

You're there to defend her every move, faux pas, ignorance and her honor. You seem so passionate about it. What exactly does she bring to the table that deems her worthy of so much effort? What makes you think she'd be a great leader of this country?

I'd truly like to hear your honest, direct and understandable answer.

i meant this.
the pathway to it was shaped by ace's rather loopy contention, stated in the form of some imaginary "gambit," that the opposite was the case.

I will spell it out.

First, I presented some questions to try to understand the issue better.Here is my conclusion based on what has been shared here and what I have observed generally:

Under ordinary circumstances Palin would have easily faded into obscurity being a losing VP candidate and resigning as governor before her term ended. But she has not.

Most of the reason that she has not faded is because those who claim to dislike her the most provide her with the most support. They trip over themselves to be the first to comment on how uninformed/unprofessional/etc/etc. she is. They also argue how her influence is weak and unappealing to a mass audience. However, their support (buying/reading her books, high TV ratings of interviews or when she is the topic, following her Tweets and Youtube videos, etc), creates their own little paradox. Hence, "I" read her book because "I" need to Know what her opposing views are, even if they are ignorant or simply lies - and since "they" are giving her so much support "they" legitimize their need to follow everything she does and says.

So, we get to the idea of this thread and the need to make public pronouncements that there needs to be a month long Palin moratorium. It is a tacit acknowledgment of an addiction. However, it is not a true first step in resolving the addiction, because there is not a willingness to honestly acknowledge the addiction. Here is the free advise to those who want to end the Palin addiction, admit it. Stop blaming Palin.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

I would love for Condelisa Rice to consider a run for President or consider being a VP. She would be my number one choice hands down, no questions asked.

I would have voted for Hilery Clinton in the general election over McCain and i felt the media treated her unfairly in her run against Obama.
I supported:
Carly Fiorina.
Meg Whitman
Nikki Haley
I supported Elizabeth Dole in her last run for Senate in NC, however a last minute blunder cost her almost all of her credibility.

When I was 12 Shirley Chisholm ran for President and she was the first candidate I actually paid attention to.

I have always liked and have been impressed by Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

And i am sure there are others that don't come to mind right now.

I see the trend and it's great to know you'd support a female candidate. I can see a value in most of the women you've supported, but is this to be interpreted to mean you support Palin because she's of the fairer sex? Or is this another evasion tactic? You did say you'd answer questions with honesty and directness, ya?

My nature is that I would stand in defense of a female much sooner than I would a male if I feel she is being treated unfairly or is being attacked. A female would be better able to get me to listen to reason than a male. It would take less for me to trust a female than a male. Some consider me to be a chauvinist, but I am not - I sincerely believe in equal opportunity regardless of sex, but the truth is that females have an advantage with me given my personality. With that being said, Nancy Pelosi is a person and a type of person I could never support or defend. Her style is grating, like running your finger nail down a chalk board grating - that bit of a contradiction I can not explain.

{added} So, a direct answer to your question is yes. If Palin were male and everything else being equal, I might defend her a bit but not with the same vigor.

Are you saying her gender is your response?

No.

The implication in your question is that there is a singular motivator to my behavior. It clearly is not, but as I wrote above gender has an impact. We happened to be discussing gender, but I would add that being a humble person of humble beginnings or a person who has had to struggle for success is a bigger factor than gender. That may in fact be part of part of my issue with Pelosi. The primary problem I have with Obama is that he is a b.s. artist, a snake oil salesman.

Okay, everyone, tomorrow's the start of February. If you're so inclined this month will be Palin-free. No need to talk about her, no need to post or blog about her, and no need to watch or listen to or read about her in the media. We'll reconnect here in a month and, if so inclined, discuss how the experiment went. If it's gone better than expected, maybe we don't even need to meet back here.

I believe it is good to give yourself a break from politics every so often, but this just seems a bit silly. It seems to me like it would be more effective to just stop talking about Palin if she bothers you so much.