What's with Sarah Palin?

She's announced today that she'll be resigning as Governor of Alaska before the end of July. Is this another public relations fumble?

Transcript of Her Resignation Speech:
http://criticalpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/transcript-sarah-palin-announce...

Yeah, I wonder what kind of screwup this is damage control for.

July 3rd, Friday afternoon, did they really think the media wouldn't notice? The press statement was a bit bizarre.

She went rogue again.

I don't find the word "resign" in that transcript --- just not running for re-election, and stuff about turning things over to the Lt. Gov. Are we sure she resigned? I guess the "r word" and the date were in a press release?

I have no idea what's going on. She won't return my phone calls.

She's working on foreign policy. The whole thing is a ruse to make the Russians think she won't be watching them any more.

> 5

Yes, we're sure. She is resigning at the end of July and will transfer power to the Lieutenant Governor.

"We are not retreating, we are advancing in a different direction." Ain't that a beaut?

She's learned from the Paris Hiltons and the Lindsay Lohans--when you're famous for being famous, you don't have to DO anything else.

Favorite moments in Palin's resignation speech.

"God gave us energy."

"Stimulus dollars would harm Alaska."

"You don't hear much good...in the press doya?"

"Frivolous ethics violations."

"Politics of personal destruction." Meaning she regrets saying Obama palled around with terrorists.

"I choose not to tear down...I choose more freedom to progress."

Well, doesn't that make it plain? She's going to become a democrat and look for a role in the current administration.

Robert

"Frivolous ethics violations."

Ethics violations are no more "frivolous" than a cinderblock is light and creamy. Calling them frivolous accusations probably makes more sense, but I guess the Bushisms of the past decade have had their toll on the level of public speaking we can tolerate.

12>
There's a chance I misquoted. But I'm not going to listen to it again to correct myself!

edit: fortunately the NY Times transcribed it. My hearing is sound.

"Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law that I championed became their weapon of choice over the past nine months. I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations, such as holding a fish in a photograph or wearing a jacket with a logo on it and answering reporters’ questions. Every one of these, though, all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We have won, but it hasn’t been cheap. The state has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to opposition research and that’s money that’s not going to fund teachers, or troopers or safer roads."

Meaning no disrespect, it seems to me that politicians do sometimes use inquiries into ethics violations as a political weapon -- not because there is any truly serious concern, but in order to have a sword over the individual to use as a distraction. Regardless of whether the investigations into Palin's ethics fell into that category or not, sometimes such use of public funding and time is frivolous.

Personally, I think that this is a miscalculation on her part.

Maybe she's "going Appalachian Trail" on us...

What ever happened with the sister-in-law charged with burglary? More "family values" scandals coming up, maybe?

Maybe she just found out she is pregnant again...and knows that her hubby is not the father. And that this will be obvious when the baby is born a different color.

The original question was whether or not this was yet another public relations blunder in the sense that Palin was making this announcement on a sort of take-out-the-garbage news day, one where no ordinary sort of layperson (as opposed to the media or other politicians) would take particular interest in news. She might legitimately expect that by doing so she would have to suffer less notice by the media or at least for a shorter period. Or she might just as easily have expected to dominate a news cycle for two or three days.

I've no way of knowing whether the woman still cherishes national political ambitions or not, but I am baffled in trying to figure out whether she handled this announcement the best way possible.

This is actually not a new tactic for Palin. She goaded the governor into appointing her to the energy commission, then made headlines by resigning, attacking the governor in the process. That is part of what launched her statewide reputation.

I was really surprised to see our local newspaper, which had been one of her biggest cheerleaders, basically say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And good riddance."

The conservative Voice of the Times supplement in the Anchorage Daily News absolutely hated Palin from the beginning. Since I haven't read the local paper in about two years, I should check to see if their position has changed.

Her speech is absolutely bizarre.

It is totally consistent with what I think about her. I don't think she's going away. She's very dangerous.

There will be no way for her to run for national office after this, and I don't think she's going to. (It's my hope that she does. Could she be stupid enough to think that the resignation stunt worked to get her the governorship, so it could lead to the presidency also?) It would contradict the one thing she was clear about in that trainwreck of a speech: she's not going to hold governmental office.

My genuine fear is that she aspires to be the Queen of the far right militia movement, fully activating all her ties to the Alaska Independence Party, and proceeding to issue fatwas against liberals, big government, pagans, and all things ungood. Whether she does this from a throne on FOX news or by twittering from a mountain retreat is immaterial.

Ah ha! I just knew pagans were big government agitators.

In the next Administration, can't we (Constitutionally, of course) find some way to restrict them merely to crystal sales and production?

Oakes, if we start oppressing pagans - I mean, more than we already do - just think of what would happen to the market for mandalas! Be realistic, man!

I love Maureen Dowd of the NY Times! She's so deliciously mean.

Sarah's Secret Diary

It may be a point of honour for any politician to become the target of Dowd's snark. I can think of three who stand out recently: Clinton, G W Bush, and Cheney. Add Palin to this list and one has a Dowdian version of Mt Rushmore. However, Palin is in pretty good company, which probably means her aspirations for higher office are not entirely delusional.

It is past time for "the Department of Law" (did she really say that?), to get involved...you betcha!

28>
Why would a staunch defender of states' rights and "Federalist" judges, who refused harmful federal stimulus money (i.e., "Yankee money" for the secessionist crowd), appeal to the Federal "Department of Law" (i.e., the guys and gals at Big Government, Inc.) to investigate local Alaskans who file ethics violation charges against her. Moreover, wouldn't this sort of thing have a chilling effect on ethical accountability? I have to assume she thought through this matter before she spoke...

>29 I have to assume she thought through this matter before she spoke...

Wow you're assuming she thinks ? Thats a tall order.

I think she thinks a "Department of Law" actually exists!

31: Well, there is a Department of Justice, which is basically the same thing that she appears to think a "Department of Law" would be.

I just googled Alaska Department of Law and apparently that is what their Dept. of Justice is called in Alaska. So I think she can be forgiven this lapse.

Forgiveness is for the weak and infertile.

Is it just me or do politicians seem to be becoming more irrational lately; Palin, Bush Jr., Ahmadinejad. There speech is incoherent, their ideas seem to lose touch with reality on a regular basis. And what is scarier they still command sizable support.

Yet another country heard from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resignation

I'm not sure which is sadder; That this is the young man that Sarah and Todd allowing Bristol to marry or that This is a top story on not only Yahoo news, but CNN, and Foxnews as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/07/09/levi-johnston-palins-resign...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/10/johnston-palin-wanted-to-take-th...

37>
Sad or expected? I got the sense Levi was coerced into a shotgun arrangement once Bristol's lack of "abstinence" began to show, to maintain the appearance that Republican family values were still partially intact. The Palins didn't "allow" their daughter to get "engaged", they had no choice -- that is, if they were to remain in the good moral graces of the Elder Hostel delegates assembled in St Paul. What is sad, I think, is that Sarah Palin went after the father of her daughter's child publicly in the wake of the predictable breakup of the happy couple, when he dared to reveal information that contradicted the Governor's fictions. If anyone had the right to charge the Governor with an ethics violation, it was the former potential son in law.

I don't see anything sad about Levi saying what he thinks is the truth behind the spin. Only time will tell if he is telling the truth, or spinning for himself.

Its news because the dingbat in question has national political aspirations, that are still apparently supported by a segment of the population, even after this betrayal/gaffe.

It's sad because instead of just saying nothing, he relayed a private conversation with his "almost in-laws" in order to get TV time, it's sad that he using this whole mess to try and get himself a reality TV show, it's sad that a young man would smear his child's grandparents in order to springboard his own career. (granted they were willing to do the same to him, but still.)

I see your point. I haven't followed his story closely, but it doesn't seem like he's got much else going on. His mother is in the criminal justice system (on the wrong side of it), maybe he needs money for her. Things went bad for him too when Palin became a national figure. The pregnancy wouldn't have rated a story in the lower 48 and he'd be an unknown figure, and would not have appeared on national TV at the Republican convention.

If you are a public figure, there is no such thing as a private conversation, and anything you say is fair game.

Is that really a reasonable demand to put on any politician? That they *never* have the option for a private conversation? Such an expectation just leads to furtive behavior and deceit or, at the very least, semantic games. Its self-defeating and not in our own best interests to force good talent into that position.

White trash, the whole bunch of 'em. Just what we need, ignorant trash in the white House.

But its because they are deceptive and fake that their private words end up as public fodder. If they lived decent honest lives their would be no clash between what they say privately and what they say/do publicly, and their 'private' comments would not have the power and interest that they do now.

At some point the public has a right to know that a person who seeks high office, is saying X in public and Y in private.

Hell, even normal people end up in the meat grinder when they say one thing and do something else, I am thinking most divorce cases have the same issues.

The bottom line is you should be ready to stand behind what you say, and if its a screw up, admit it and move on.

"In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm." Peggy Noonan on Palin http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

oakesspalding, you are clearly in need of a great big Tigers eye...

and as for Palin~ she is shockingly uneducated when it comes to government and for that matter reality. She looks good in those waders.. I hope she stays put ( sorry artic-stranger) and lives a long happy life with all of her family very close around her.

fun Palin reads

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sar...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/opinion/08dowd.html

Andrew Sullivan, a real conservative in the Oakeshott mold has this to say about Sarah Palin. She and the Republicans she represent are not conservative, but radically dumb.

I do not consider the Republican Party in America today as a Conservative Party. They are Radicals and every bit as ideological and dangerous as any other radical political party.

48> But, Gene, that notion or the notion that they are thieves gets a nod and then gets ignored even by people who are radically opposed to them. Not even liberal democrats, say most of my fellows at church, will converse on the matter.

Robert

Radicals are not good in any party, not smart radicals are perhaps more dangerous than smart ones.

So, uh...does anyone think that her resignation might have had something to do with this?

The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.

Well, that's interesting. But let's turn to another point:

So you're saying that it's right for public figures to suffer personal financial liability for defending themselves against lawsuits stemming from their public position, but if they even receive voluntary donations to defray those costs, they are guilty of implicitly taking advantage of their public position?

Is that your claim?

In Alaska that is the way things are done. Sniping at public servants is the only thing we enjoy better than mushing. You guys are just seeing what happened to Palin. You should see what happens to liberals up here!

So when people slam their kids, you blame the parents for putting them in the spotlight? Charming.

Well, when you live in a state in which the only two fun activities to do during the Winter months is ski and screw, other activities must be developed to keep the multitude occupied, lest there be riots. Sniping at politicians is one such activity. But reserving the sniping only during the Winter months is like saying I will only do cocaine on the weekends.

codyed>

If you're not in advertising you should be.

"Alaska... where the only 2 things to do in winter are ski and screw. See ya there."

They can put me in charge of the posters. I know some people...

She's Gone Oh I, Oh I'd
better learn how to face it
She's Gone Oh I, Oh I'd
pay the devil to replace her
She's Gone - what went wrong?

Well, in this case the article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. This looks like Palin attacking just for the sake of Palin attacking. I don't like Palin as a politician for a lot of reasons, but this seems to be stretching things too far, and I agree with Oakes for once, trying to recoup her costs of being the governor (lawsuits that went nowhere) shouldn't be a crime, as long as she isn't profiting from it. The article states she's using her position to raise the money, money that the average citizen couldn't raise in a similar way. Well the lawsuits where brought against her IN that position so I think it's justified since none have gone anywhere. Now if her neighbor was suing because of a personal reason that had nothing to do with her being governor, that would be a different story (and maybe some of them were?)

Oakes is right. The point at first seems to be that it's okay to spend government money prosecuting Palin, but not defending her. But actually it's even worse than that. Some are saying that it's okay to spend government money atacking her, but not okay for private individuals to donate their own money to defend her. From the link in #51:

Palin's friends and supporters created the Alaska Fund Trust...In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."

In other words, she's famous, so it's unethical to donate funds to defend her. WTF?

Two facts about the Bill Clinton scandals:

1) One argument Clinton and the Clintonistas made against the Starr case was that it was a waste of government money to investigate him.

2) Clinton set up a legal defense fund to which sympathetic private individuals were encouraged to donate.

I think the concern from an gov't ethics point of view wouldn't be that she is famous but that she holds a powerful position. So some people might be donating in an attempt to curry favor and get her support for their special interest.

The article also states that the investigator believes that Alaska should pass a law that state officials be reimbursed for legal expenses for legal problems that are due to their official position. Many jurisdictions already have such laws if I'm not mistaken.

To say that some people could have done that is rather thin gruel as an argument, and certainly not enough to warrant an investigation.

You could be a murderer, jjwilson61, but that possibility by itself doesn't warrant an investigation.

Where have you been the last 40 years? That's generally how ethics laws are written.

Sec. 39.52.310. Complaints
(d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is
properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation
of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional
information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the
allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss
the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.
(e) The attorney general may refer a complaint to the subject's designated supervisor for
resolution under AS 39.52.210 or 39.52.220.
(f) If the attorney general accepts a complaint for investigation, the attorney general shall
serve a copy of the complaint upon the subject of the complaint, for a response. The attorney
general may require the subject to provide, within 20 days after service, full and fair disclosure in
writing of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged violation. Misrepresentation of a
material fact in a response to the attorney general is a violation of this chapter. Failure to answer
within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by
the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint.
(g) If a complaint is accepted under (f) of this section, the attorney general shall
investigate to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. At any stage of an
investigation or review, the attorney general may issue a subpoena under AS 39.52.380.
(h) A violation of this chapter may be investigated within two years after discovery of the
alleged violation.


http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/ethics/Statutes-AlaskaExecutiveBranchEthicsAct_AS...

When a complaint is brought against any individual, whether it be Sarah Palin in her capacity as governor, any state official or any private citizen, if the complaint is upheld in the proper venue the person should pay for their defense out of pocket. If the complaint is not upheld all legal fees, out of pocket expenses and other expenses plus a five percent surcharge should be paid for by the complainant. Hopefully this will cut out a lot of harrassing and frivolous complaints (truly frivolous complaints should carry thirty days in jail and a $10,000 fine for both the complainant and their lawyer(s)). Of course this may also prevent legitimate complaints from being brought, but this should only be so in cases where the complaint is ambiguous or where it is supported through corruption.

>65 “Where have you been the last 40 years? That's generally how ethics laws are written.”

I didn’t say anything about the law. I was talking about whether it warrants an investigation by the standard of basic decency.

But since you’re interested in the legal aspects of this...

From the Alaska ethics link in 66:

(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's...
(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.

There it is in black and white: Conjecturing that a crime might have been committed is explicitly excluded from being considered an ethics violation.

Furthermore,

Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.
(a) The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Regarding her defense fund, Palin is not even accused of taking any official action to benefit those who donated, as far as I know at this time. Worse, Thomas Daniel, the author of the report the AP obtained, doesn't seem to care about that anyway. He has said that her merely being helped pay her legal bills is in and of itself an ethics violation...contradicting the clear language in Alaska ethics law.

From the article linked to in msg #51:

An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees

This independent investigator is the one that thinks Sarah may have violated ethics laws. If you have a problem with his interpretation of the laws in Alaska you better take it up with him.

70: If Alaskan law actually operates the way that the independent investigator asserts that it does, then Alaska better be prepared to have no one but the independently wealthy (very wealthy) run for the office of governor (or any other public office) in their state again. No one without the ability to spend piles of money defending against the inevitable ethics allegations (and there will be many, that's just the political climate in the modern world) will even consider running for elective office.

Alaska the plutarchy. Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

>70
“Take it up with him”?
In 65 you brought up ethics laws and suggested I’ve been out of touch for the last 40 years because I haven’t read them. Now you've done an about-face and are saying that my reading them is irrelevant - instead I should just trust this lawyer’s interpretation of them. Make up your mind.

1. This independent investigator is the one that thinks Sarah may . . .

It's nice to see that the haters are on a first name basis with her.

2. That Daniels appeared to ignore the "through public action" clause of the code is a good point. Also, let's look at his claim again:

"In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."

That is obviously true on its face. But it is interesting that Daniels conflates public official and public figure. If she had stepped down the moment the fund was set up, it would arguably have received more money. (Among other things, it would have been easier for her to aggressively solicit gifts, there probably wouldn't have been the $150 cap, and so on.) Now of course, she would have received them due almost entirely to her status as a public figure. But she now has that status independent of whether or not she occupies a political office. Indeed, her then actual official position as Governor might plausibly be argued to have been a net detriment to the effort. Or to look at it another way, if she was exploiting her position, why did she then decide to leave it?

72> I was giving my understanding as to the goals of ethics laws in general. I have no knowledge of this particular ethics law and no way of knowing if you are quoting the correct law or only a portion of it. You and the investigator from the article seem to have different interpretations of the law but since he's the expert and it jibes more with my understanding of the purpose of ethics laws I think I'll take his word for it.

#62 Clinton didn't quit. Quitters never win.

Who are the haters, Oakes?

>74 I don't find this convincing, but if I respond I'll just be repeating things I've already said.

Anyone who disagrees with Oakes, geneg.

Personally, I am gearing up for the Palin for 2012 campaign. I am saving money to support her in the primaries. I don't the Republicans could choose a better candidate. She really does represent the core values and culture of conservatives, and having an Alaskan in the White House can only help keep the pork coming home.

People who make sick attacks on her kids. Or people who blame her for exposing her kids to sick attacks. People like you, for instance.

C'mon, Arctic... Why ya gotta hate?

Outside of ultra-conservative chavs (who are not a majority among Republican voters...unless the birthers movement takes off unexpectedly), I don't see much support for Palin, going forward, in the Republican party. She's anti-pork, so she would cut off the flow of milk to Alaska from the federal government teat. Could she even carry Alaska in a general election? She has a better chance of making a boatload of money using the media to bash the media, one of those performative contradictions that have marked her public persona since last August: she opposes the "politics of personal destruction" yet seeks to destroy her liberal opponents in a silly slurry of anti-American accusations; she's a fighter who nonetheless quits; a hockey mom who fancies Nieman Marcus; a momma Grizzly bear who protects her cubs, yet exposes them -- using them as political props -- to the harsh glare of the media; a family values candidate who publicly trashes the father of her grandchild; an avatar of abstinence, who allows non-same sex sleepovers under her own roof.

. . . an avatar of abstinence, who allows non-same sex sleepovers under her own roof.

Who knows, since we are going by the word of Levi--clearly an ally of yours now, theoria. But let's take him at his word. My mother would probably have classed herself as "an avatar of abstinence", if she had to declare herself or choose, or whatever. But she also trusted her children and didn't want to be overly controlling of their social lives, etc. Many mothers are like that. I imagine Ms. Palin was similar. Though if she had refused Levi entry to the house at gunpoint, no doubt you would have criticized her for that. Isn't that true, theoria?

Your claim that she merely used her family "as political props" is sick. Disgusting, actually. Do people like you have no shame? Is a certain element of the left so morally exhausted that they have to resort to this sort of crap? Is hatred--of particular people or groups--the only thing that motivates you?

While I can't speak for theoria in particular, this is necessarily true of the post-modern Left in general:

Since they deny the very idea of reason (fact, logic, reality, etc.) they admit that they have nothing to peddle other than emotion.

Is hatred--of particular people or groups--the only thing that motivates you?

I've often wondered that very question about you as well.

# 79, Oakes, "People like you, for instance."

Is that aimed at me? If so, you must not have read my objections to Letterman's joke (I'm sure that's what you were talking about). I said it was in bad taste, targeted the wrong kid, and he was right to apologize. I never said anything about her putting her kids in that situation. I said family's of politicians are not fair game unless they insert themselves into the situation.

I also believe that the national indulgence in this kind of crap will be the downfall of America. The MSM, FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, nearly all of the news whores with the exception of a few bloggers are charged with giving us circuses. They tend to shy away from news. They've convinced themselves we're too stupid to understand the news, so why bother us with it. They are the pot stirrers to the media money interests. As long as they can stir the pot and keep people distracted more of the same government shenanigans that got us to this point as a nation will continue. Does anyone believe those news organizations I listed above have an interest in keeping us informed? It is in no one's interest that the American people be informed about anything.

I tend to agree with Arctic, anyone who disagrees with you, Oakes, is a hater, or whatever hyperbolic label you wish to apply this week. Thank God you don't hate. I can't begin to imagine what that towering intellect of yours could do to someone if you turned the hate on them. Oh, that's right, you get your labels from FOXNews, what a surprise. Go back and re-read what I just said about the MSM of which Fox is a particularly egregious example.

In reality, I was using good old-fashioned logic to point out the contradiction between Palin's words and her deeds. A "post-modernist" would rest content with irony, holding -- perhaps -- that there is no "doer behind the deeds" who could be caught in a net of false actions, that there is no reality to compare to truth claims enunciated in constantive speech acts; but such a postmodern would certainly not rest content with emotion, which is an anti-modernist, romantic virtue. (end of "teachable moment" on postmodernism).

However, regarding emotion, it is worth noting that a trend has emerged from the conservative milieu that may portend a new political orientation -- if not a new political style -- in American politics. Eight years ago, the "neocons" rose to power, bringing with them a confident and assertive view of America's place in the world. The "new American century" called for forceful action from the world's only superpower; and by pulling off the invasion of Iraq (a plan laid out in position papers during the 1990s), the new American centurions didn't allow a crisis to go to waste.

A mere six years after the shock and awe of March 2003 and the triumphant days that followed the fall of Baghdad, the neocons and their grand vision have been swept away. However, a new group has stepped into the political void, a group that could be called the "emocons," whose affect-laden public discourse stands in marked contrast to the aggressive, self-confidence seen in the typical neocon performances of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. The emocons have taken their place on the public stage in a variety roles, as politicians, as pundits, as police officers demanding public apologies, and even as ordinary citizens. The heartfelt emotion portrayed in the tearful performances of Glen Beck is echoed by the Delaware “Birther” who cried out, during a public meeting, “I want my country back,” like a child who has had her favorite toy taken away (fortunately, the aggrieved Birther found comfort in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance). Yet, it is the emergence of emocon politicians in recent months that has been most striking: from Die Leiden des mittelaeltlichen Sanfords, the South Carolina governor who found himself torn between two lovers, whose copious tears held viewers of his unscripted press conference riveted, and whose passionate emails to his “soulmate” from the Southern Hemisphere offered a modest challenge to the lyricism achieved by Goethe (or The Young and the Restless); to the pouting visage of Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R- Alabama) as he sat -- passive-aggressively -- in confrontation with a Latina who declared herself to be wiser than him; to Governor Palin’s star turn as a sympathetic (not empathetic) victim of the machinations of Hollywood (i.e., anti-hunting, anti-gun actors), of New York (i.e., The Media, also known as those who are “makin’ things up” about her), and of Washington D.C. (i.e., elected officials who are currently exercising the authority granted to them by “the People” -- as per the Constitution -- as a result of free elections). It is not clear whether the emocons have a common agenda or set of policy prescriptions apart from tugging at the heartstrings of the American public. But the pathos and bathos of this group is certainly fun to watch.

#86, theoria, "But the pathos and bathos of this group is certainly fun to watch."

It might be fun to watch if it wasn't so dangerous.

>86 Interesting here about the shift from a self-confident posture, at least for many of the highly visible media types. But is it possible that some of this description ("Die Leiden des mittelaeltlichen Sanfords", indeed!) participates in the emotionalism, after its own fashion?

>87
Agree--watching this is not my idea of fun.

87>

So far (fortunately), the only danger they present is to diction (Palin), to Republican party chances of gaining the support of Latino/Hispanic voters (Sessions), and to the sanctity of marriage (Sanford).

88>
I don't think emotion can be stripped from politics, if that's what you're asking. However, it is curious how the emocons are playing the role of victim (consciously or not). Sanford is a victim of love; Palin a victim of anyone or anything that doesn't accept her at face value; Sessions, Gingrich, et al., are victims of the hubris of a Latina judge; "Birthers" are victims of a President with dark skin; and on and on. I can't imagine Cheney playing this role gladly.

It was at the directly previous post and poster, geneg, not you. My fur went up when my name was directly mentioned in the third person, as it were. Apologies. And I remember your honorable position on that other thread. Apologies again.

I'm not sure what you were getting at with Fox News and labels. The words "fascist" and "hater" have most often been used by the left to describe people they don't like on the right. And of course I've been at the receiving end a few times myself of the "hate speech" accusation. I used to think these words had been drained of all meaning. But recently I've come around to the view that they actually describe the motives and behavior of some of those on the left quite well--indeed, ironically they are apt and precise about many of the very people who originated their use in contemporary politics.

So no, it's not people who disagree with me (though you're welcome to think so). It's people who, say, actively work to undermine the democratic system by launching ethics complaints--complaints that they themselves often admit are costly and frivolous--merely to personally harass a sitting governor whose politics they disagree with (that's a fascist tactic, if there ever was one), or people, such as a few on this thread, who defend the same. Or, as I said, it's people who make sick personal attacks against Palin and her family, or as I alluded to above, defend those attacks, or blame her for the attacks, etc. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term "hater" at all (though many on the left are still enthusiastic), but if it's going to be in play, many of the anti-Palin people richly deserve to have it applied to them.

Theoria eats everybody's lunch on this thread.

I'm taking "emocon" to the bank. It crystallizes the moment.

>86:
In reality, I was using good old-fashioned logic to point out the contradiction between Palin's words and her deeds. A "post-modernist" would rest content with irony, holding -- perhaps --... that there is no reality to compare to truth claims...

If you accept logic and reality as objective standards by which to assess statements, I’m delighted (as if one has a choice, snort). That’s why I said, “I can’t speak for theoria in particular...”

Regarding the statement that a post-modernist would deny a reality against which to judge truth claims... Indeed. As I said.

...but such a postmodern would certainly not rest content with emotion, which is an anti-modernist, romantic virtue...

Expressing an ironic attitude toward a statement is expressing an emotion about the statement. (Disdainful amusement? Detached contempt? Whatever.) It certainly is not an analysis of the statement. Once they deny objective standards by which to assess statements, what else can they do but express emotions about them, whether it’s shrieking in hatred, sighing with delight, or raising an ironically arched eyebrow?

As to the Right and emotions, I said the PoMo Left have nothing to peddle other than emotion; I never said that only the PoMo Left expresses emotions. While we’re on the subject, though, the Left, PoMo and otherwise, is at least as emotional as the Right, it seems to me. One could multiply examples indefinitely, but... saying Republicans should be exterminated, stating that to vote Republican is to indulge in a temper tantrum like a two-year-old, infinite numbers of “protestors” saying Bush is worse than Hitler (or, in their more measured moments, merely just as bad as Hitler), etc., are all examples of...reasoned analysis?

These are all examples of leftists with no particular connection to postmodernism (as far as I know). However, examples specifically from PoMos - beyond expressing irony - aren’t to hard to come by, e.g., shrieking about Western culture oppressing the rest of the world, etc.

On Palin: There is something a bit odd about comparing Palin’s words to her deeds and calling it a “contradiction.” In common speech we do sometimes say that a person’s words contradict her deeds, but this is not a correct use - in the context of logic - of the word contradiction. A contradiction is a relationship between two propositions. An act is not a proposition. “Performative contradictions” are not part of the conceptual repertoire of logic, speaking precisely. At least, this is what I was taught when I took Propositional Logic. I’m trusting that the professor and textbook taught us standard terminology.

The correct word, the precise word I think, is hypocrisy.

I do understand that postmodernism is a rather fuzzy thing. I am focusing on the relativist version of it. This version might be summed up as the attitude, as Robert Anton Wilson put it, that "Reality is what you can get away with."

The only really important thing about Sarah Palin is her character.

(1) Many politicians seem to have an annoyingly elevated sense of their own worth, and get caught out telling fibs about their past which they apparently have convinced themselves are true. Is she any worse than, say, Bosnian combat-veteran Hilary?

(2) Is she self-aware enough to realize her limitations, from the point of view of her suitability for national office? Some of these limitations can be overcome through systematic study and discussion -- but you have to be aware of them.

She is an illustration of the Great Temptation of modern American conservatism: populism. All conservatives need to read up again on why we are only skeptical, reluctant supporters of democracy.

#95, Carny,

I do understand that postmodernism is a rather fuzzy thing. I am focusing on the relativist version of it. This version might be summed up as the attitude, as Robert Anton Wilson put it, that "Reality is what you can get away with."

Why do you continue to refer to leftist Post Modernism, especially the relativist version when the most prominent statement of just such a position was made by the Republican Bush administration. their major problem was their inveterate belief that whatever they believed/said would create its own truth.

Working with the reality you want, not the reality you have seems to me to be a Republican problem. Those few Dems that work this way are fairly marginalized. To the Republicans it is central to their ideology.

>93, 97

Have to say that I like the coinage: "PoMo Left" and "PoMo Right". And there are some examples of PreMo out there, too.

The more vital conversations are going to be among those who can avoid such labels when talking to their side (or, sometimes, across barriers). Could the ones who really connect be called the MoJos?

(Sorry..!)

Oh puh-leaze, Gene, in its political aspects PoMoism is almost entirely a phenomenon of the Left.
Note I don't say all lefties buy into this - most don't - which is why I distinguish the PoMo Left from the rest of the Left.

The Right, on the other hand, eats it up like candy. If they can't create their own reality nothing they believe makes sense.

ETA: I will grant that PoMo is primarily a phenomenon of the left. It was originated and developed by the radical left in the fifties and sixties. Back when the Republicans were pretty much restricted to military pragmatism and economic responsibility. Today, the right is more concerned with divvying people into groups and setting them against one another through the use of language. Much of this requires world building of the sort one sees in SF. The problem is these worlds are imaginary.

For a look at alternate universes consider the "birther" movement.

Have you heard of the post modern mafioso? He makes you an offer you can't understand.

Ou la chevre est lié e faut qu'elle broute.

If I wasn't so busy making my bed so I could lie in it that might get my goat.

> Re: #60

That's how porn star Harry Reams got his "legal aid"