Palin the fool removes all doubt
One of the Sarah-bashing allegations coming out of the McCain camp is that she thought Africa was a country instead of a continent. The MSNBC pundits - esp. Matthews - have been scoffing at that. They keep asking how could any adult, college-educated person in the U.S., the governor of a state, not know that Africa is a continent.
Frankly, I didn't have any trouble believing it. American high schools aren't known for producing well-rounded individuals and many colleges don't have geography, history, politics or sociology requirements for graduation. With the xenophobia and racism that runs rampant in this country - esp. among right-wing Republicans - as well as the Republican penchant for anti-intellectualism - is it really a shock that a governor from a low-population, conservative, and "maverick" state like Alaska would be so ignorant?
And now, Palin has inadvertently confirmed her own gaffe:
If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about Nafta -- about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there -- then those were taken out of context.
The continent vs. the country? So she thinks there is a country called Africa? At the very least, she's confirmed she said something that could be construed that way.
And why would Africa come up in debate preparation about NAFTA? Maybe because she didn't know which countries are part of NAFTA? That was another allegation coming from McCain's camp.
During the same spontaneous press conference, Palin denied the RNC had sent anyone up to Alaska to repossess her $150,000+ wardrobe. But she confirmed there were, in fact, RNC representatives doing an inventory of her wardrobe. Hmm.
Remember, this is the same chick who, the day after the Alaska legislature's Troopergate report came out, saying she had done things that were illegal and unethical and enumerating those things, she told the press she was glad the report said she'd done nothing illegal or unethical.
I guess nothing's true until Sarah says it's true.
Girlfriend needs to shut up. Maybe she's never heard of this advice, sometimes attributed to Lincoln:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I've been feeling sorry for her because I think she's being scapegoated. She is not the reason McCain lost. McCain choosing her might be one reason he lost but it's not the only one, and she's not the one who chose her.
But now I'm thinking - karma's a bitch. After all the attacks she made on Obama, she's got it coming.
Next time someone asks her if she wants to run for national office, maybe she should blink.
(cross-posted on my site)
I'd like to stop thinking about Sarah Palin. She's not a serious candidate for 2012 and if Stevens win and if he gets expelled and if she runs for his seat in the Senate and if she wins, then I'll think about her again. For now, I think I'm done.
November 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. This post is great, but could you please edit it to put a couple of paragraphs in the body and the rest in the extended tab? It makes more room on the page for other posts. Thanks!
November 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She's not a serious candidate for 2012..."
I would suggest we should encourage her to run at every opportunity.
What more could we (the middle AND the left) ask for in a Republican candidate? Surely no one with any logical reasoning expects her to beat Obama in 2012, so if those lacking that same logic detremine that they must have her as their candidate, I say "Bring em' on!"
The only thing better that a Palin ticket would be a Palin/Gingrich or Gingrich/Palin ticket, but those two Hindenburg dirigible egoes couldn't fit in the same hangar, let alone on the same ticket.
But wouldn't it be interesting! Double crash and burn!
Newt must be getting his meds from Rush. If he or his agent, Novak, thinks the McCain failure has suddenly opened a door to some retro-bizarro-world Gingwretch administration, they must be high on SOMETHING.
PS slightly OT, but did anyone else notice Iowa's Charles Grassley staring fixedly at the Ice Queen's rump during one of her Iowa stops?
Charlie, you old coot, I didn't think you were so "male"able.
November 9, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she'[s a serious candidate even if she doesn't get into the Senate or win reelection. Listen to conservative talk radio, and conservatives are divided into pro-Palin and anti-Palin factions. The pro side is trying to purge the antis. It's talk radio versus newspaper columnists. My guess right now is the Republican primary process will be Palin versus not-Palin, though I can't tell who'll win. I have a feeling the GOP still thinks the last two elections were flukes, and they'll go down in flames again in 2012 before they start getting themselves straightened out.
November 9, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time the American people got the facts about Palin (and others) involved in the election before we discuss how serious Palin is as a candidate.
Here is just one fact:
Sarah Palin returned to Alaska from the lower forty-eight by clicking her new red Pradas together three times and repeating, “There is no place like Nome.”
"After the Election: Unreported Facts You Need to Know"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
November 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What page are you talking about? The only place I see this post is on the list of recent posts, where only the title appears and here on my own blog.
I'm new to all of this.
November 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymous people referred to her saying "the country of Africa" instead of "the continent of Africa", so "about the continent versus the country" would be one way to accurately summarize the issue. She didn't release a written statement, so quite likely the italics didn't make it to this transition. Elsewhere she made it clear what "context" she was referring to - that it was a silly inadvertant slip in the middle of hours of prep work that someone wrote down as if she didn't know. People do misspeak, and it seems highly doubtful that Palin would actually believe Africa was "a country".
The first NY Times article has
Well, you should note that your version is a quote of a quote. In the "original", "when we talk about Africa there" obviously means "in debate prep". In the quote of the quote, the sloppy punctuation makes this less clear. And of course you neglect to slam the Times writers for writing Nafta instead of NAFTA. If the NY Times is that sloppy with acronyms and punctuation, I wouldn't get into fisticuffs over tiny details about what Palin purportedly said.
November 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you actually watch the video of the interview?
November 8, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Desidero,
You say: "Anonymous people referred to her saying 'the country of Africa' instead of 'the continent of Africa', so 'about the continent versus the country' would be one way to accurately summarize the issue."
Please suggest which country Sarah Palin meant by "the country" in her phrase "about the continent versus the country".
And you say: "And of course you neglect to slam the Times writers for writing Nafta instead of NAFTA. If the NY Times is that sloppy with acronyms and punctuation, I wouldn't get into fisticuffs over tiny details about what Palin purportedly said."
You should get out more, or at least do a lot more reading. In the educated world the initial-cap treatment of "Nafta" is no less acceptable than "Unesco", "Qantas", "Nato" or (the late) "Seato".
And why do you say "purportedly said"? The quick study from Wasilla is on video at http://youtube.com/watch?v=z17cZv-hmFQ confirming her original gaffe thus: "If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about Nafta -- about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa [. . .]".
Again I ask you: Which country did she mean?
November 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
She said earlier it was simply a slip of the tongue in a long session.
And no, Unesco is not correct, nor is Nafta, nor is Nato. Qantas became Qantas through long use and the public forgetting it was an acronym, just like the name "radar".
November 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost but not quite. The Times is one of the least sloppy newspapers out there, and their editors very strictly follow their style and usage manual. Like you, I often disagree with their style and usage, but it's not that they're sloppy, just that they've made style and usage decisions that I disagree with. I agree with you that most acronyms should be capitalized (and the periods omitted), but that is not their convention.
November 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
More worrisome is their lack of checking sources and facts when cheerleading an administration's rush to war. But arbitrarily renaming acronyms to proper nous is also rather bizarre behavior.
November 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In contrast to Orlando (with whom I usually agree), I'm - finally! -- not averse to thinking about Sarah Palin ... because she is no longer an imminent threat to the country. Now it's sort of tabloid - sort of like the stories of Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith - that are mildly, very briefly, appeal to ones morbid curiosity. ---
AND if some of these wild stories manage to disgust enough people that she ceases to be even talked about as a political force in the future, so much the better! She truly terrifies me, not Palin herself but the forces that want to use her in the same way they used GWB. I truly don't think that she has *any* limits on what she would be willing to do to have and wield power and that, if she were to ever be our leader, we would look back to George Bush with longing and affection.
November 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's Dubya with lipstick. Frankly, if she runs, and I hope she does, bloggers can wipe the floor with her. Her stupidity is breathtaking. She takes no responsibility for anything. To blame the press for her horrific interviews is absurd. If she said it was stress, being a first timer on the national scene, I could symnpathize. To explain it any other way is absurd. She is a guaranteed loser, so please, let her run!!!
November 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie-
I am no fan of Sarah Palin, but I do have a bone to pick with you: you report that the Alaska legislature ruled that Sarah Palin's firing of a state trooper was both illegal and unethical. In fact, the ruling was that she was unethical, but did nothing illegal. Sarah Palin twisted the truth by turning "unethical" into "ethical." You turned "legal" into "illegal." In my opinion, a key and fundamental problem in our country is that lies are a ubiquitous ingredient in political rhetoric. Obviously, Sarah Palin is a champion liar, but if anyone is committed to a certain opinion, it is hard for me to understand why that person would fear that facts and logic alone are not enough to convince others.
You used a very popular phrase to summarize Palin's campaign and its outcome, and I would like to explain why I am opposed to crediting "Karma" for situations like this. First, Karma only works after you die: the details of your reincarnation depend heavily on how nice you were during your previous life. More importantly, though, I feel that the temptation to use Karma as a means of vengeance reflects a bad habit of mind. To an extent, the "what goes around comes around" mentality is a covert way of expressing malice while accepting no responsibility to address constructively whatever wrongs were committed.
November 8, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie:
Sarah Palin was found by Branchflower to have violated AS 39.52.110(a), a statutory provision of the ALASKA EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACT.
"Illegal" is defined as follows at
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal/
"Illegal is a description for something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance. Illegal does not necessarily mean criminal. Something may be illegal under a statute that doesn't require criminal intent, and is therefore a civil violation subject to civil penalites such as a fine. Illegal acts that are civil violations include driving too fast, failure to register a business, etc."
So my bone to pick with you, Debbie, is that you appear to have confused the term "illegal" with the term "criminal."
Sarah Palin was found by Branchflower to have acted unethically, and therefore illegally, but not criminally.
November 9, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
MY ERROR.
The above comment should have been addressed to Alix -- not Debbie.
---------------------------------------------------
Alix:
Sarah Palin was found by Branchflower to have violated AS 39.52.110(a), a statutory provision of the ALASKA EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACT.
"Illegal" is defined as follows at
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal/
"Illegal is a description for something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance. Illegal does not necessarily mean criminal. Something may be illegal under a statute that doesn't require criminal intent, and is therefore a civil violation subject to civil penalites such as a fine. Illegal acts that are civil violations include driving too fast, failure to register a business, etc."
So my bone to pick with you, Alix, is that you appear to have confused the term "illegal" with the term "criminal."
Sarah Palin was found by Branchflower to have acted unethically, and therefore illegally, but not criminally.
November 9, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I very distinctly remember that discussion when the report came out. As you stated, it was determined that she acted illegally but did not violate criminal statutes.
November 10, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I conducted a more thorough investigation, and here is my report:
Based on the specificity of your answer to my comment, I am guessing you've read the Branchflower report, and I hope you will agree that there is a certain murky quality to the text. Nowhere in the findings is any action described as illegal or unlawful, but it is explicitly stated that in spite of the finding that Palin abused her power, her firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of her authority. Now, at first glance, that sounds like Palin is off the hook. The report's findings seem to trivialize Palin's violation of the ethics act until you get to page 50-- and we all know Sarah Palin doesn't read-- where it explains that she violated the act not by firing someone but by sneaking around trying to fire someone else.
If her understanding was that the findings of the Branchflower report concerned only her firing of Monegan, then it would not be so imaginative of her to describe her actions as "proper and lawful." Then again, The Rachel Maddow Show presents a series of video clips in which Palin confirms that she did nothing illegal or unethical in trying to fire Wooten, and like a broken record, repeats the same glowing analysis of herself when asked-- multiple times-- about her violation of the state's ethics act.
You win. (Where the heck am I getting my information?)
November 10, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I feel sorry for her, sometimes I don't. When I hear her complain about false allegations and the media not doing their job, I also think Karma's a bitch. She made false allegations against Obama and twisted his words all the time. Some of her "facts" about Obama came from the very media that she now despises. I think John McCain and his campaign managers/advisors should be getting as much heat as she is. SHe should not be getting skewered for her Africa comments, but for her pallin around with terrorists comment, her suggestions about Khalidi, and her real american nonsense.
November 8, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel sorry for her. Her eight straight days, starting with the convention, of lying about being against the bridge to nowhere, until the timid press prit near called her a liar. Her anything goes attitude when it benefits her personally, such as her unapproved $50,000 mayoral office renovation and the ridiculous $150000 amount she spent on clothes when told to get six outfits. She is a complete and utter fraud.
November 8, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that they both should be getting heat, but part of hers should indeed be because of her utter lack of knowledge; remember this is someone said "Yes" without "blinking" (what does that mean exactly -- without THINKING?) to the question:
Will you please run for the office of Vice President with a 72 year-old man?
She is not well-educated, and has not made up the difference by reading widely and other forms of self-education. She clearly does not have a world-view, and yet she agreed to accept one of the most important jobs in the world!
She is a cartoon, and has no sense of right and wrong, or she could not have spewed all the shit she did, and kept it up when she saw how it was affecting the people in her audience. Rather than realizing that she was inciting violence and anger, and therefore toning it down; she fed off of it. She is one sick puppy.
She endangered the Obamas, and that endangerment has not gone away. There is nothing so horrible that anyone could say about her that would be too horrible. She is a harmful, deadly creep, and if it will take her running against him in 2012 to finally sink her pathetic ship, fine -- I hope she does it. She sure can't repeat the same tripe next time around. Maybe she'll pick Joe the Plumber for her running mate (unless she would be saving him for the Supreme Court).
The republicans have truly lost their way. They proudly wear ignorance as a banner; they see war as a way to get rich; they see the environment as something to plunder. Yep! She's THAT ONE for 2012!
November 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie, at the start of this thread you say:
"Next time someone asks her if she wants to run for national office, maybe she should blink."
Yeah. It's enough that she's been giving the world the runs.
Seriously, though: She and that other wordsmith John McCain should pal up with each other again and establish an outfit called the Pundints America Party, or PAP for short.
Or the tundra territorian should put up her hand to lead the party that reckons aLASka should become a country, in other words a nation. She would be just the ticket in that role to nowhere.
November 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides not knowing anything about geography, did anyone notice that the poor woman is also incapable of putting two grammatically correct sentences together? She routinely forgets to include such usually important things as "subjects" or "verbs" in her sentences, and the syntax makes the two Bushes (George I and George II) look like paragons of clarity.
The simple truth is that she is an uneducated lout who could only rise to political power in such a backwater province as Alaska. She must've spent too much time playing basketball and moose-hunting to have actually participated in English class. I mean really, wasn't her meandering from one junior/community college to another - none of them remotely what one could term "distinguished academic centers" - a pretty good sign of her low intellectual level. She is a good example of the failure of the American educational system.
November 9, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any reason to fell sorry for Sarah. She decided to play and played the game she did. She lies through her teeth on a daily basis with the intent to further her own ambitions. Thank God that a large majority of voters have seen through her bullshit, and have decided she is not presidential material.
November 9, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk of blaming McCain (which trust me, I do) instead of Palin sounds entirely like we're talking about a troubled teen from a disfunctional family.
I just want to remind everyone who is sounding remorseful about the hammering she's getting (and which I personally feel is richly deserved, I won't equivocate on that) that this is a woman who is an elected Governor and mother of five, and who chose to place herself in a position a heartbeat from the presidency when it was offered to her. She is not a dopey kid, even if she found an audience receptive enough to that schtick that it became her M.O.
She glorified in the applause and high-fives she got from the worst this country has to offer, and in the process, encouraged violent threats to a man who worked incredibly hard to keep from hurling the shit right back at her and her running mate (despite the desire of many of his supporters, I might add).
She picked up that rotting, fetid ball and ran with it gleefully. She and McCain both deserve all the tirades being leveled at them now. And I don't mind saying that if she decides to run in 4 years, this criticism is arming her similarly toxic GOP rivals with ammo they can use against her. Now, or then, she's burnt toast.
November 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I invite all who think that Palin is "not a serious candidate" to review the year 1980 when the Dems were gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation of a Reagan candidacy.
This woman is a greater threat to America than GWB in that she is ruthless, incompetent, ideologically rigid, and religiously fervid. Bush lacked these latter two deficiencies.
If Gov. Palin runs in 2012, 2016, or any time in the next 30 years, be VERY afraid.
November 9, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink