Backers of US President Barack Obama are eagerly poring over thousands of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's emails, desperate to find incriminating details sufficient to disqualify her from all politics and public affairs. And what have they found so far?
One can only assume that the Left-leaning editors who dispatched teams of reporters to remote Juneau, the Alaskan capital, to pore over the emails in the hope of digging up a scandal are now viewing the result as a rather poor return on their considerable investment.Most readers of the emails are likely to grow more sympathetic to the plucky little woman from Wasilla, AK, when they learn about all the death threats directed her way by supporters of the current US President.
If anything, Mrs Palin seems likely to emerge from the scrutiny of the 24,000 pages, contained in six boxes and weighing 275 pounds, with her reputation considerably enhanced. As a blogger at Powerline noted, the whole saga might come to be viewed as “an embarrassment for legacy media”. _Telegraph
But we all know that Obama supporters tend to be a bit energetic and rowdy at times -- all in good fun, of course. Consider a recent brawl at a San Jose, CA, McDonald's. Dozens of Obama supporters -- over 100 persons according to witnesses -- enthusiastically took part in the melee, resulting in two stabbings and a certain amount of property destruction.
Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., the Obama administration itself is busy destroying America's energy infrastructure, business infrastructure, economic and financial infrastructure, and the infrastructure of law which up until Obama had given native born Americans and immigrants the opportunity to work hard and develop their potential.
The United States of America -- the world's leading economy and only military superpower -- is being led by a group of people best known for their public antipathy toward the American constitution, American business and commerce, and the generally staid and stable American way of life and personal opportunity.
It is easier to destroy than to create, and it is the practise of destruction which seems to appeal most to Obama supporters and the Obama administration itself.
American voters will have to decide how much longer they will be forced to watch this government of destruction continue in its catastrophic march to the sea.
11 comments:
I'm not sure what it is with this site and Palin. I'm not much of a fan of Obama, but Palin is a wrecking ball in a gucci dress.
Every time she opens her mouth you can see exactly how vapid her thinking is: 'right-wing talking points with random phrases thrown in from a thesaurus' I believe was Colbert's phrase.
She cannot admit her mistakes, has no objectivity of thought (drill baby drill - yeah right). She has no judgement (remember that fake interview with the 'president of france')?
In short she is the worst that populist politics has to offer. Having suffered through eight years of the last populist president we had (george bush, anyone?) I really don't relish living through another 4, or perhaps 8. She'd gut the rest of the clean air, clean water act we'd have and double down on the most dirty energy resources we have (coal, tar-sands) for a quick economic high followed by another long contry-wide headache.
jeez guys. support an alternative to Obama, but really. support a *real* alternative to Obama.
h22: Certainly your point of view is plastered over virtually every media outlet in existence. But it is not the purpose of this site to mimic conventional thinking.
Palin serves as an excellent lens through which to view the frantic hysteria to which quasi-leftist media outlets are reduced, at the thought of the possible election of either a woman or a member of an ethnic minority who refuses to toe the radical leftist spiel of oppression.
This is not about an alternative to Obama. Rep. Weiner is an alternative to Obama. Is that the kind of thing you had in mind? ;-)
Rather than to think about an "either-or" dichotomy, or a one-dimensional political spectrum line, it is long past time for thinking persons to see political philosophy as more of a hyper-spherical n-dimensional space of possibilities.
afin - perhaps my point is plastered over the mainstream media because the point happens to be true.
And perhaps by extension, the 'frenzied search' as you call it by leftist groups may be justified.
I've heard her speak, I've hear the level of discourse the woman stays at and I've concluded she's as vapid as her critics say.
We don't need a populist, we don't need a statist, we need a pragmatist in the job of president. And palin is NOT that.
Palin has not announced her candidacy to any office whatsoever, so any articles posted about here on this blog have nothing to do with any election. Rather they are to point out the vacuous nature of her critics, whose emotions tend to get the better of them.
"I can see Russia from my front porch . . ." "Trig is actually Bristol's child..." and so on through a wide range of fabrications and willful deceptions.
h22: You are certainly welcome to your point of view and if you are registered to vote in the US, you can express your view in the polling booth.
You fail to bring up specifics. Arguments consisting of "I feel that . . ." or "It seems to me that . . ." and so on, fail to achieve significant heft with most thinking persons.
put it this way - her 'personal vacation' is touring all the states that so happen to have important, early primaries: iowa, new hampshire, etc. so if she is not outright running, she is considering it. And I have several issues with Palin as a candidate.
When Palin makes a mistake, she doubles down. When she talks about paul revere and makes several factual errors, she later claims that she was 'trapped' by the media's questions, and that she indeed made the correct statement.
Talk to her about energy policy, and her answer is 'drill baby drill' - although it is pretty obvious that the world's cheap hydrocarbon resources are other places besides the US, and that no amount of drilling is going to make up the gap of energy supply vs demand that the US faces.
Or the extreme conflict of interest that she faces from being a commentator on fox news with political ambitions; she transparently wants to run for president, but she also does not want to give up the 10 million dollar yearly stipend she receives there.
By campaign laws you are limited in the airtime and money that you can receive; by declaring what is obviously a political tour as a 'personal vacation' she can skirt the letter and spirit of american law.
Or how about her obvious and cynical manufacture of the 'palin brand' as part of a reality TV show? Or the resigning of an opportunity to get actual executive experience as the governor of alaska vs the dubious choice of becoming a right-wing pundit in the first place because it was politically expedient?
Her populist tactics are just as unsavory as anything I've seen so far (including bush and obama), and they would not herald a new enlightened era in washington. And as sure as grass grows, she's going to drop back into politics in SOME way or another.
You have the right to an opinion as well, but I put it to you - that in your dislike of all things Obama you are really clutching at straws here - just because something is NOT obama doesn't make it necessarily a better option.
Nor is fact checking on a public figure an unsavory tactic. How DARE people hold others accountable for what they say!
Otherwise, you must have found the public news against Wiener, Clinton, Schwarzenneger, Michael Steele, Mike Duvall, Mark Sanford, or anybody else on this list:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
Or this one:
http://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy
totally out of bounds, even though many of the people on those lists ran (and won) as the 'moral' candidate holding conservative family values.
Give it up. This is legit to do, and even though I am not too fond of obama's policies, that doesn't mean I'm going to go with an even worse choice.
Well, you are certainly covering the standard talking points. There is no evidence that you are actually thinking things through to the essence here. You are not alone, as I have said. Groupthink is certainly the modern fashion, and no one should feel threatened when standing up for conventional thought.
This blog is not about standing up for groupthink or trite conventional talking points, however. Eventually you will learn that no amount of repetition will make them any more profound or true. That is something for you to discover on your own.
Palin is wonderfully provocative when she shouldn't be at all. That is why we at abu al-fin enjoy writing about Palin. Because despite how essentially unremarkable she is, she drives the pseudo-intellectuals in the mainstream insane.
I only opt what I see as eminently obvious. Sometimes a cigar is really what it is - just a cigar - and it really doesn't make sense to find something 'profound' about it. You really shouldn't oppose standard talking points just because they are standard talking points. You need a *reason* to do so.
Palin is really what she seems on the surface - a media animal. She lives and dies in the public eye, and it only makes sense to analyze her in that light. If she got into office, she'd do exactly what bush - and to a certain extent - obama did, which is to play politics as usual and appoint people into various positions just because they were 'sound people' - ie: those that would have a predisposed agenda in mind, rather than the best people for the job.
I also put it to you that she is provocative because she is dangerous - she appeals to the very people that this site warns about, people who vote with their the gut rather than their heads, and list their number one criteria for voting as someone who they'd 'be comfortable sharing a beer with'. As if that's any qualification for anything.
Let me turn it around - what makes you think that she would be any good as an administrative leader? She's taken away any sort of method for judging her performance - by resigning the administrative post on which she could be evaluated - and FORCES people to view her in the lens of the media. If I'm using standard talking point criticisms, its because she has not offered anything more substantial in judgment.
So yeah, the criticisms are standard, but no, I didn't take them at face value, and no, they didn't just parrot out of my mouth. I gauge things and either find them compelling or wanting, and it just bothers me that you seem to be blind to what are fairly obvious points.
Your comments settled into a routine from the very first. How many ways can you find to say the same thing? The fact that you have inserted nothing of substance appears to have escaped you, at least for now.
You wish not to let others weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusions -- unless they come to the same conclusion as yourself.
Yes, that is how university graduates are taught to reason, I understand that. But it is totally inadequate to the challenges of modern times.
Groupthink cannot protect you. Groups (and their thoughts) are like clouds, they arise out of nothing and disappear into nothing. Fashionable for a time, then eminently forgettable.
al fin -
like I said from the outset - and I say so now - just because a thought is contrary, doesn't mean that it is *right*.
I have weighed what you said, and what Palin has said, and they have both come up wanting. She QUIT the only job that would have given her any qualification for an exec.
Hence, the ONLY EXPOSURE to us has been through book tours, media outlets, and through right-wing talking points on outlets like fox.
Here's a standard quote from her, delivered on the fox news network:
"what president palin would do is cut the federal budget, making sure that we're not crowding out private spending. We have no choice, we're growing broke, we are going bankrupt, we have absolutely no choice. And cut the burdensome regulations and mandates that really quash an entrepenerial spirit, we're really stuck in neutral right now, we really can't expand I would cut taxes second highest corporate taxes in the world we are burdened with we need to cut back to incentivize businesses to stay on our shores in america and not outsource all these jobs and opportunities and then, one of the most important things chris is that we have got to engage in is unleashing the domestic energy production opportunities, it does come down to 'drill baby drill' in addition to all of the above energy policy which is really non-existent in the obama administration, energy is the key to prosperity, to security and we've got to start tapping our conventional and alternative sources of energy, we're never going to get there."
Great! Every single one of these could be found in a standard right-wing talking point guide, but it is reflexive, there is no thought behind it. When it comes to 'drill baby drill' is she going to auction off our national parks, and gut the clean air and water act in the process? Is she going to gut fire and police and education programs? Is she going to gut consumer protection agencies and let banks run amuck with their destructive, zero-sum policies for getting rich at the expense of others?
In other words, is she going to act strictly out of ideology, or is she going to give some THOUGHT to the matters at hand before acting?
Here's your point "groupthink cannot protect you" - and I agree. But what is more worrying is that you SEEM TO BE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT SARAH PALIN IS GROUPTHINK INCARNATE, just with an ideology that you find more comfortable.
The best presidents were above all, the best administrators. Eisenhower, for example, was one of the best of the best presidents out there. He had gravitas, he had experience, administrative skill from leading in world war II.
But above all - he wasn't an ideologue. He founded the AEC to push atomic energy. He gave a huge boost to the highway system with the federal highway act. He struck a huge blow against discrimination with his social policies.
He could - therefore - look at each circumstance and be wise enough to know when the best policies were public, and the best policies were private. He could act PRAGMATICALLY.
Now, let's continue the interview. Asked now about the debt ceiling. Question:
"you said you don't agree with
timothy geithner when he says that catastrophe will ensue if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but Moody's has now come out and said that they will LOWER OUR CREDIT RATING if we our debt unless we raise the debt limit, and they may lower our credit rating unless we come up with a serious reduction plan".
Answer:
"I don't believe timothy geithner as he cries wolf for the fourth time now, that there is a drop dead date and crisis will ensue and economic woes will fall even greater than they already are if we don't increase the debt limit.
Moody's warning is very powerful, and it says that we should be electing congress folk who hold purse-strings in this nation to stop incurring debt.
"
Um... ok.. Moody's credit rating drop WILL be catastrophic, but it won't be? WTF? Why not come out and say we HAVE to increase the debt ceiling now to avoid catastrophe, sit down with the democrats and try to come up with a lowered spending plan? Is she really willing to wait another year and a half - potentially two and a half years without the debt-ceiling raised, waiting for the 'right' people to come into power, so we can't pay our interest payments and our credit rating is shot to hell?
Oh yeah - she isn't CAPABLE of seeing that. She is an ideologue, and she's catering to an audience, not trying to figure out what is the best for the country.
Her solution to the problems at hand was the same as the Bush administration's - wait for destruction to ensue, grab power, silence critics of that power, and force an ideological agenda down our throats.
Oh yeah, that works really well. It's the primary reason we are in this mess - because the reality of the market hit our delusional system. Because our political system has become ideological first, and pragmatic second.
So it's VERY troubling to me that you don't seem to recognize that this ideological poison is at work in BOTH parties in our polarized system - democrats AND republicans.
Republicans are addicted to the idea that no government is good government, except perhaps the military. This has led to massive externality problems in our system, including a near depression and alarmingly large disparities between the rich and the poor.
Democrats (and to a certain extent republicans) are addicted to massive - instead of targeted - social entitlement programs, and weak ineffectual sources of energy.
We have as a result a system that seems to engender the worst results of both worlds, and is not sustainable.
So - I guess I can ask, who is REALLY afflicted by groupthink here? You seem to be blind to an ideologue's faults (namely Palin), and tell one side of the dysfunctional story that is America.
I'm willing to look at history without partisan eyes and see what works and what does not. It's one reason I read your site.
Are you willing to rectify that?
EP: Do you honestly believe that exposing the dishonesty and underhandedness of a person's critics is the same thing as promoting that person's politics and agenda? If so, you really shouldn't.
We at abu al-fin enjoy poking fun at Palin critics, just as 99% of the media enjoys poking fun at Palin herself. Within that 99% are some genuine nut-case fanatics who do deserve to be taken down a bit -- even if their target (Palin) is someone whom you personally dislike.
In other words, they cannot hide their dishonesty behind the claim that they are merely trying to keep Palin honest. The ends do not justify the means here.
As for Palin and her agenda / plans, I am relatively indifferent at this point.
If Palin ever achieves power, and goes to work attacking the US with the same gusto which Mr. Obama and his cronies have done, this blog will certainly have some things to say about her.
Post a Comment