The Anti-Federalists on "Going Rogue"

One of my New Year's Resolutions was to read the Federalist Papers and the contemporary responses to them (often referred to as the Anti-Federalist Papers).  I have been slowly and sporadically doing this.  The Federalist Papers, as most students of American politics know, constitute an intellectual defense of the U.S. Constitution and the structure of the kind of centralized federal government, with its appropriate checks and balances, that it outlines.  The preference of the authors of the Federalist Papers was a government that tempered the excesses of dispersed "democracy" through the form of a representative "republic." The Anti-Federalists tended to prefer the more flexible and decentralized structure of a confederation of states.  The Anti-Federalists, we might say, were suspicious of the power of centralized authority in a unitary federal government, even with the introduction of "checks and balances" in the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, I would argue that the Anti-Federalists could be considered the intellectual forbears of the contemporary anti-establishment, anti-elitist, states rights movement in the U.S., i.e. the "Tea Party."  [An aside note: the original "Tea Party" was really a movement against a colonial central authority, Great Britain.  It was not a movement that would have viewed a national, freely-determined representative government of the United States as illegitimate.  "Taxation Without Representation" was the cry of the original Tea Partiers; but modern-day Tea Partiers can't really claim that they have no voice in constituting the "Representation" of their government.  It is a misnomer.  Modern-day Tea Partiers are much more akin to the confederationists of early America; and I believe the authors of the Federalist Papers and the defenders of the federal Constitution would view modern-day Tea Partiers with derision if not contempt, much like they did the Anti-Federalists of their day.]

Back to point ... if modern-day Tea Partiers can be connected to the Anti-Federalists of yore, and if we view Sarah Palin as a representative icon of the modern-day Tea Party movement, wouldn't it be curious to try to see how the Anti-Federalists may have understood Palin?

Well, in reading an Anti-Federalist tract published anonymously in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advisor on March 7, 1788, I found a little tidbit that really interested me in relation to the narrative that Sarah Palin has constructed for herself today.

Sarah Palin has positioned herself as "roguish."  I've always been baffled by that, because being a "rogue" has always had a kind of negative association.  Yet, Sarah Palin has embraced that moniker.  As we know, she even titled her first book: Going Rogue.  I think it's also clear that Palin is appropriating the kind of mischievous, anti-establishment side of the definition, as if that is something positive.  But the Anti-Federalists thought of the "rogue" in a very different light.  Here's that little tidbit from the Anti-Federalist piece I mentioned above:

No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments -- he will be respected in none.

I think Sarah Palin, the inheritor and modern-day claimant of the Anti-Federalist intellectual tradition -- though I doubt that she has ever read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and that she is even aware that her views come out of this tradition -- would be wise to consider the counsel of some of her anti-establishment, confederationist "Founding Fathers" and stay away from the "rogue" label. The risk is that most people will wise up and think of her "going rogue" not as anything truly admirable, but as nothing more than foolish hardheadedness, impulsive and thoughtless contrarianism, and thuggish bullying that also comes with the term. The longer she plays that game, the more it is evident that the risk's negative outcomes are becoming realized in the minds of Americans.

Palin's Perry Problem

Texas Governor Rick Perry's pending entrance into the GOP Presidential primary contest poses a particular problem for Sarah Palin. Perry is making a passionate pitch for the evangelical Christian vote, particularly evident after his powerful prayer meeting. Sarah Palin's predicament is obvious. Her base consists precisely of such people who are perhaps the most influential Republican primary voting constituency. But, such people are also the most likely to prefer a conservative male candidate who meets all the other basic Tea Party criteria. It's just the gender hierarchy of fundamentalist Christianity. Because of this, Sarah Palin's criticism of Rick Perry's role in increasing Texas's debt load makes perfect sense. If Palin has any plans to run for president, she needs to pound Perry on such issues to weaken his appeal to the evangelical base she will so desperately need in order to prevail in the GOP primary contest. Even though Palin hasn't formally declared yet, I think her latest assault on Perry is perhaps the clearest evidence to date, at least to me, that she plans to run.

When Is The Palin Joke Gonna End

I mean, really. I know she can be entertaining in a perverse sort of way, such as in one looks at her with a kind of macabre fascination; but when will the people on the right wing who are serious about addressing this country's problems inform the Palin dupes that the joke is over?

I have never seen a more shocking joke of a serious national political figure in my life. I mean, I get that she taps into the populist frustrations of a certain terrified and angry right wing, but there is fundamentally nothing at all redeeming or attractive about Sarah Palin as a viable governing authority.

My friends on the right wing, almost all of whom are equally embarrassed and appalled by her, constantly tell me how disastrous Palin is to the values and ideals they believe in and hold. So, in that sense, I'm not really worried about Palin's chances in any head-to-head election with Obama (or any other Democratic candidate); but I am, shall I say, more than worried about what the Palin phenomenon is revealing about our culture.

I though conservatives loathed the idea of victim-politics; but it's abundantly clear that victimization is all that Palin is about. In fact, she's the noisiest and most blatantly pandering caterer to the victimization and resentment culture that this country has seen in a long while. Doesn't that become weary to conservatives after a while? I'm just askin' ...

Palin the Incurious

You want to see another incident of how utterly incurious Sarah Palin is about the world, watch this:



Pay attention to two particular moments: (1) When asked what she has seen in India, the only thing Palin could muster up was a reference to the sights from her hotel room and out of the window of the car driving her around. Even a regular tourist would come up with at least some kind of historical building or monument to mention. The image that her comment conveys is of a person who never leaves the car or the hotel room and who never ventures out to really get to know the people and the place that she is visiting. (2) The second revealing moment is when Palin is asked whom she would have liked to meet in India, but didn't have the time nor the chance to meet. And, again, Palin could only think of the people she has met and didn't even address the question itself. This makes Palin look utterly uncurious about the country. Maybe she could have mentioned a famous Indian scientist, or novelist, or artist, or, hell, even a cook or TV entertainer. But she apparently knows so little about the country, and is so incurious about it that she couldn't even care to learn about it some.

Let me ask you all this: every time you plan a trip to a foreign country, what's the first thing that you do? Well, what I do is that I read up as much as I can about that country's history, culture, national monuments and treasures, and its people. I formulate a plan for how I want to see and learn about the country and its people. I think of the hotel room and the car as mere means to an end, and I certainly don't try to keep myself cooped up in such places, or subject myself to such a scripted and sheltered schedule that I can't enjoy the place. It shows to me that Palin simply doesn't really care all that much beyond the photo-op what visiting a place outside of the US can really teach her.

Palin Speaks On Haiti

Credit where credit is due. As a fierce and regular critic of Sarah Palin on this blog, I think it is especially incumbent upon me not to gloss over where Palin does something that I think is laudable.

Sarah Palin has visited Haiti and urged that we not forget this suffering and troubled country.

I agree with that message. And, as far as I'm concerned, you can't have too many people delivering this message. Sarah Palin's voice in this respect is more than welcome.

The Messianic Cult of Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin was in my neck of the woods recently. I am always struck by how many of the very same star-struck adorers of Palin are also the ones who most likely recoiled at the "celebrity" power of Barack Obama in the last election. But the adoration has reached messianic proportions among some of the folks who basked in the divine glow of St. Sarah at the temple of Barnes and Noble:

Metairie resident Betty Purcell also had been waiting all day to meet Palin, who she praised for being a Christian and a leader. "It's really neat to be able to touch someone who's doing what she's doing," Purcell said.

Now what, exactly, is Sarah Palin doing beyond a book tour and a reality show? Maybe that one "touch" has cured all of Betty Purcell's ailments connected to Obama Derangement Syndrome. Who knows? And if there ever was any doubt that the ideological wars are being played out in Reality TV shows, I give you this from a St. Sarah devotee:

"You may have shaken hands with the future president," Brenda Fernandez told the boys after they stepped from the table. "This is something they'll never forget."

Brenda Fernandez told Palin that she voted for her daughter, Bristol, 10 times during the younger Palin's recent stint on "Dancing With the Stars."

"Thank you for keeping her in there," a smiling Palin told Fernandez. "She had a blast."

See the conflation of politics with pop culture? The same woman who is ga-ga over having possibly met a future President, sees fit to affirm her loyalty to such a future Commander-In-Chief and leader of the free world not by stating that she admired and voted for her in the 2008 election, but by declaring the multiple times she voted for Bristol Palin on "Dancing with the Stars"! Yes, Eric, we've already lost the battle. Do you see that now?

Message To Conservatives Who Would Call Me A Sarah Palin Hater

Let me put it to you like this: I just think and feel about her the way you think and feel about Obama. So, however you see fit to describe me when it comes to Sarah Palin, I will just assume that's also how you would characterize yourself when it comes to Obama.

Wasilla Shore, cont.

Want to see another episode of Palin's Alaska? I mean the real Palin's Alaska? Just read through this facebook comment war that apparently involves both Willow and Bristol Palin acting like the "proper" young ladies they are:

During the premiere of "Sarah Palin's Alaska" Sunday night -- a boy named Tre who went to school with the Palin kids wrote a status update that read, "Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing so hard right now."

The comment sparked an intense response from Willow -- who replied on the boy's wall, "Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I've seen pictures of, your disgusting ... My sister had a kid and is still hot."

Willow followed up that comment with another that read, "Tre stfu. Your such a f**got."

Bristol Palin also got in on the smacktalk -- writing a message to Tre saying, "You're running your mouth just to talk sh*t."

Eventually, a message board war erupted -- and Bristol took aim at another person named Jon -- saying, "You'll be as successful as my baby daddy, And actually I do work my ass off. I've been a single mom for the last two years."

Of course, anything that comes from gossip sites like TMZ should be taken with a grain of salt, even though it would be hard to fake this episode. Even still, the sympathetic conservative blogosphere is taken aback by the exchange as well and offering some cautionary admonitions to the Wasilla Shore debutantes:

First of all, let me just note that even if Willow and Bristol talk like that in private, they shouldn't be using that kind of language in public, particularly on Facebook, where it's out there in print for the world to see. That's advice I'd give to anyone, by the way. I'd also add that it's wise not to use that sort of language in private either -- and I can tell you that from personal experience.

As someone with two young daughters myself, one of whom is on the cusp of teenager-hood, I'd add that it's not just the profane language that's a problem, but the downright Jerry Springer-esque trashiness of the whole attitude behind the exchange. And though these immature young girls are responsible for themselves, I do have to say that kids don't just pick this up and internalize this kind of behavior without an implicit tolerance from the parentals. As the saying goes, "the apples fall not far from the tree." It is a reflection not only on who they are themselves, but on the whole community and family structure that has supported them and nurtured them.

What kind of role model would this chronic trashy soap opera that appears to be the habitual Palin family modus vivendi be for my daughters and for America's families should it infest the White House? Wasn't the damage done to the image of the American Presidency through the seediness of Bill Clinton's White House sexcapades enough?

Sarah Palin in the Cocoon: Where Lies Are Easy

Sarah Palin, cocooned as she is in the conservative media echo chamber which never, ever calls her out on her patent falsehoods, not only seems incapable of admitting fallibility, but also thinks that compounding lies with even more egregious and disingenuous ones is no problem as long as it placates her fawning admirers who can see no wrong in anything she does and who see her as combatting that evil, "lamestream" media for daring to point out her lies. There is just no way that a serial liar like she is should have any business even being close to the Presidency.

Sarah Palin, Koran Burning, and the "Ground Zero Mosque"

Sarah Palin has put up a Facebook posting expressing her opposition to the Koran book burning stunt being proposed by a Christian church in Florida. Her opposition to this Koran book burning seems like a noble gesture, but it's anything but. It's a qualified statement of mild opposition that uses the occasion cynically to try to demagogue the "Ground Zero Mosque" project ever more by making a kind of moral equivalence between the "insensitivity" of the mosque builders and the "insensitivity" of the Koran book burners.

The title of her Facebook posting is the following: "Koran Burning Is Insensitive, Unnecessary; Pastor Jones, Please Stand Down"

So, by calling on Pastor Jones to stand down, and then by linking Pastor Jones's call for a Koran book burning to the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, Palin positions herself to claim a moral perch upon which to argue that she is being an equal opportunity critic of two expressions of "insensitivity." If she calls for Pastor Jones to stand down, well, by golly, isn't she justified in calling for the Imams behind the "Ground Zero mosque" project to stand down? How noble of her!

Pshaw! I say: How disingenuous and cynical of her.

She starts off the posting with this paragraph:

People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

And then she ends her brief posting again with mounting an equivalence between the construction of the mosque near ground zero with the Koran book burning.

In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

To which I answer ... NO, NO, and EMPHATICALLY NO! The Koran book burning is not simply "insensitive" and "unnecessary" (as the title of her posting claims) -- it is intentionally destructive, demeaning, and hateful. The construction of the ground zero mosque is nowhere near in the same category of intent. Opposition to the Koran book burning is not about "The Golden Rule" (because what intentional harm are the mosque builders
seeking to do to Americans in the building of a house of worship and an interfaith community center? What are the mosque builders doing unto others that they would not accept being done unto themselves by others?)

I would hope that everyone is against the Koran burning stunt not because it is "insensitive," but precisely because it is an act of intentional violence, destruction, and debasement. The book burning actively seeks to do harm! It actively seeks to destroy! It actively seeks to debase the foundations of another religion! Try having a group of radical Islamic fundamentalists in the United States engage in an intentionally vicious public Bible burning and see if people like Palin think of this as nothing more than something that is simply "insensitive and an unnecessary provocation."

What is disingenuous about Palin's disavowal, and that of other conservatives, is the equivalence that is being made between the perceived "insensitivity" of the ground zero mosque builders and the "insensitivity" of the Koran burners.

Let me state unequivocally right here and now: There is no equivalence, so conservatives should stop making it so.

In fact, making such an equivalence is rather consciously insidious. By equating opposition to the construction of the mosque as coming from the same motivation as opposition to an intentional burning of the Koran, the goal is to make mosque building next to ground zero and Koran burning in Florida as parallel expressions of "insensitivity." It ignores any evaluation of intentionality of the acts themselves. Let me characterize this distinction in two ways. First, the mosque builders themselves have said their intention in building the mosque is to foster greater harmony between Islam and the other religions that are practiced in our country. Their intention is positive and constructive (as represented in building a place of worship and interfaith community programming). The intentions of the Koran burners are clearly negative and destructive. They are being intentionally inflammatory and intentionally hateful. Second, let's look at the root of opposition to both the ground zero mosque and the Koran burning. My understanding of opposition to the ground zero mosque is its location, not the act of constructing a mosque itself. So if the mosque were moved some "respectful" distance from the site of ground zero, then presumably opposition to it would dissipate. But a Koran burning could happen anywhere in the U.S. and opposition to it would, one presumes, remain. As I mentioned previously, a fairer comparison would be if a group of radical fundamentalist Muslims engaged in a provocative Bible burning in the U.S. as a statement about Christianity. And we can certainly see the difference between the "insensitivity" of that kind of action relative to the construction of a mosque near to ground zero. So creating a kind of equivalence between the building of the mosque near ground zero to that of burning the Koran is absurd on its face. And those like Sarah Palin who can't oppose the burning of the Koran without making such an equivalence are just engaging in more anti-ground zero mosque demagoguery. It makes her pretend equanimity stand out as hollow and cynical, and only confirms her as the morally vacuous demagogue she is.

Bristol and Levi: Wasilla Shore, Episode 2

Will the roller-coaster saga never end? It's sad, really. And I believe this is just another episode in a series that will continue to go on and on, getting seedier and seedier. I'd be more snarky about it, but it's just too tragic at this point. I can't help but feel awful for Tripp. Poor kid.

"Sarah Palin Chose 'B'": Question 11

Check this out.

I'd like to add another question to the 10 posed in the linked post. That question is: "Given the history of decision-making by Sarah Palin surrounding the bringing into this world of her unborn, special needs baby, can you trust Sarah Palin as President (a) to be thoughtful, careful, and prudent in making the right decisions for the American people or (b) to act irrationally and in ways that would put the health and well-being of our country and its citizens at much greater risk?"

I think the answer is obvious.

Conservative Hypocrisy and the Ground Zero Mosque in New York

I hear a lot from some of my regular conservative readers and friends about keeping government small and local. About respecting local authorities and decision-making processes.

It's all about small and local.

And yet ... many conservatives who espouse this line on a daily basis are really very willing to have government impose its views on individuals -- as long as such views conform with theirs.

Many conservatives who point to Arizona's offensive (to me, at least) immigration law argue that what Arizona does is Arizona's business and that the rest of us, including the Federal Government which represents the rest of us, have no business meddling in Arizona's affairs.

And yet ... many of these same conservatives think that the Federal Government should deport all undocumented immigrants. Many of these same conservatives think that inserting a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is just fine and dandy.

And now, these very same "small and local" conservatives are trying to impose their own bigoted will upon the people of New York City by engaging in a Christian crusade (and when you see the advertisement, you'll understand exactly why it is akin to the Christian crusades) against the establishment of a Muslin mosque and community center in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Here's the grossly unconservative and offensive ad:



Notice that it's produced by the National Republican Trust PAC. Figures. And the sentiment undergirding that ad is embraced, promoted, and celebrated by that faux-conservative joke who goes by the name of Sarah Palin and by the faux-conservative people who support her.

What does this "Kill the Mosque" movement, supported and promoted by Sarah Palin, say about leaving such decisions to the local authorities and the people most directly affected by the decision to construct a mosque? As many people have expressed, the local community and local authorities are in support of the effort. Why do Sarah Palin and her "Kill the Mosque" compatriots from "real" America in the "Christian heartland" get to impose their will from afar on the very diverse community that is New York City? And even if you say that these folks have the right to express their opinion, I'd say that's fine; but then they are expressing what I would think is a very un-conservative opinion -- an opinion that doesn't square with what these very people also say about small, limited government that respects local authority.

Just imagine if Palin were President. Do you think she would be a small-government conservative? Absolutely not. She'd try to impose her "Christian heartland values" on every place in the country and would use every federal government power at her disposal to do so. And if such power wasn't enough, she'd simply pull a George Bush and create such a power under some notion of the "unitary Executive" or using some kind of signing statement or executive order or you name it, to do so.

Why can't true conservatives see through this charade? Are they so blinded by Obama that this simply escapes notice? What gives?

Sarah Palin Pulls a Joe Biden

That is, she's doing some "refudiating" of that liberal slander which calls the Tea Party racist. Get it ... "refute" and "repudiate" combine to make "refudiating"! Heh!

Ordinarily, such a gaffe wouldn't even register. But when you've got someone like Sarah Palin making such gaffes (and more than once!), it just reinforces her image as a ditz.

Bristol, Levi, and Sarah: Jerry Springer/Jersey Shore Redux

One thing you have to give the Palins is that they are most definitely the epitome of average, gossipy, po-dunk, cheeseball, slapstick, classless and clueless, and a bit on the trashy Jerry Springer/Jersey Shore side of "middle" America. I guess that's fine for what it is; but would you want such incurious mediocrity to be the leader of the free world? I shudder to think...

The latest in the Palin soap-opera, trash-class melodrama is the tabloidesque secret engagement of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.

Not only has Sarah Palin apparently been kept out of the loop in this surreal roller-coaster of tabloid fare, but it appears that Bristol is actually afraid of how her mother will react to the news of the engagement made with such a splashy exclusive tabloid interview.

Can you just imagine what seedy tabloid scandals would infest a Sarah Palin White House? I can just imagine a reality TV show setting up shop in the Executive Residence section of the august halls of the White House.

I really can't understand how the joke that is Sarah Palin, and the craziness that is her family, can command such appeal to anyone with any modicum of a brain. I guess it would be different if she actually had any original ideas or policy positions; but she has nothing beyond silly, meaningless slogans like "Mama Grizzlies" and "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "Deport All Illegals." She's not even principled enough to be consistent with her Tea Party fan club.

I guess some would call me an intellectual elitist for simply pointing out the obvious. But, elitist or not, the facts are the facts. And the fact is this: Sarah Palin is a mentally vacuous, intellectually incurious person with a pretty face and a cheesy soap opera "Jersey Shore" family situation. I can't fathom that kind of representation of America in the White House. And I have to trust that most conservatives who value intelligence, integrity, and dignity in a leader will also chafe at the prospect of a Palin Presidency. I am absolutely convinced that it would be an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions at every level. And I apologize to any conservatives out there who think I'm going over the top here; but I can't help it. I have to say what I see and think on this; and I honestly am completely and utterly dumbfounded when I think about the appeal and popularity of Sarah Palin as a prospective political leader.

Sarah Palin, the Gulf Oil Spill, and Faux-Conservatism

I remain constantly amazed that Sarah Palin somehow continues to carry the mantle of conservatism around this country. With regard to the Gulf Oil Spill, Palin is demagoguing the Obama administration's response to the efforts by BP to handle the gulf oil spill. Her complaint? That Obama is too cozy with BP, which is preventing the administration from getting more directly and precipitously involved in mitigating the disaster and in handling the crisis. And, yet, the Obama administration's response has been decidedly conservative, so much so that he's taking some heat by activist liberal environmentalist groups for not asserting government authority even sooner and more forcefully.

The Obama Administration's reluctance to push BP aside seems to have as much to do with a recognition that it is BP, and not the Federal Government, that possesses the capacity, knowledge, and experience to deal with this. It seems to me that the Obama administration is promoting a responsible position with regard to its involvement in mitigating the crisis. It is a position that is actually quite conservative. In fact, it appears to be even too conservative for Sarah Palin, who is supposed to be the very face of conservatism.

I'd like to know from Sarah Palin what her response would be? If she were President, would she be demanding a precipitous federal intervention in the process, pushing BP aside?

I think Palin's response is rich with irony. And it exposes her unconservative populism. She's supposedly not only the pro-industry "drill, baby, drill" cheerleader, but also the anti-government intervention conservative. What gives? And why do conservatives continue to support her?

Sarah Palin and the Dumbing Down of America

I have been reading a lot lately about how Sarah Palin's appeal is due to her ability to connect with "real" America and how she is just like so many other average Americans. I agree that Sarah Palin's appeal is because of this. However, what I can't understand is that people actually think this should be the hallmark of a leader. It's the dumbing down of America. We speak of America's greatness, and yet Sarah Palin's appeal is precisely for the opposite. She's not great; she's average. She's not impressive, she's ho-hum. She's not thoughtful or curious, she's actually vacuous and devoid of ideas. She's not even inspirational in any meaningful way; she's just happenstance celebrity. I challenge anyone to point out anything about Sarah Palin that represents anything even remotely accomplished that a parent would want her daughter to imitate. Sarah Palin is no role model for my daughters.

Let's try to think of this in a different way. When people say that they feel drawn to Sarah Palin because she is like them, don't you think you ought to know a bit more about who these people are who make this claim? Who is it that Palin appeals to and why? Are these people who live dysfunctional lives? At another level, I find it problematic that people who are drawn to Sarah Palin convey in their support for her that they want their leaders to be a "normal person" just like them. What does this mean when we recognize that of us are not very extraordinarily skilled in leadership, or knowledgable enough about complex matters, or psychologically prepared enough to endure in such a stressful and demanding job. Is that really what we want in a leader? Mediocrity? Sarah Palin's celebrity is because of her mediocrity. That's just pathetic, if you ask me, and is quite the opposite of what this country promises.

I know some very self-absorbed, ignorant, and troubled people who think their lives are "normal." They think that their lives are as "real" as it gets -- especially because they haven't had an easy life (even though it's a life they made for themselves). Yes, yes ... I know ... call me elitist; but I believe that being leader of the free world requires someone extraordinary, not someone ordinary; and the reality is that very few of us have what it takes to be President. I include myself in that number. I think there is a lack of imagination when people are drawn to someone as a leader not because of anything special about that person's abilities that transcend the average; but precisely because of that averageness. I also think that there is something very pedantic and even narcissistic to think someone worthy of leadership because they are like "me." I, personally, want my leaders to inspire me to something more, greater, better than what I think I am capable of or what I am accustomed to.

In fact, of the many conservatives I know, the ones who like Sarah Palin are people, even ones who are salt-of-the-earth good people, whom I would never, ever want to hold any position of authority over the public trust. Of the many conservatives I do know who are smart enough to recognize that extraordinary ability is actually desirable in a leader, almost none of them support Sarah Palin for any kind of authority in governing.

I come from a very humble background. Neither of my parents got a high school degree. They eventually earned their GEDs, but their formal education stopped there. Thank God my parents didn't ascribe to the attitude that I find undergirds much of the support for Sarah Palin, else I wouldn't have been encouraged to get all "elite" by going to a good university and aspiring to something beyond a career as an electrician, which is the family trade. In fact, the attitude of the Palinites is one that has its own elitism -- one that snubs its grubby "real America" nose at the American dream of becoming part of an elite. If you distinguish yourself from the "average" American, however that is defined, then you are one of those snobby elites who think they are better than the "average" American. It ascribes success outside of what Palinite America defines as success as "elitism." I just think it's plain jealousy at the success of others. How else can one look at the story of Barack Obama and think that his story is not as much the quintessential story of the American dream as any other. And yet the Palinites despise Obama because of his success and his abilities. They call him elitist because he resists the Palinite embrace of the dumbing down of America. Palinites can have their "Joe the Plumber" America. I prefer an America that recognizes the value of "Joe the Plumber" America, but sill aspires to something greater than that.

Sarah Palin as a Spice Girl

Bible Spice!

Came across that in some blog comment section.

Gotta love it.

Making the rounds is Sarah Palin's latest buffoonery tweet:

Gulf: learn from Alaska's lesson w/foreign oil co's: don't naively trust- VERIFY. Livelihood affected by spill?Don't sign away remedy rights

Some facts: (1) Alaska's lesson w/foreign energy companies involve Sarah Palin's pipeline contract with TransCanada. (2) Alaska's biggest environmental disaster involving an oil compay was ExxonMobil's Valdez spill. ExxonMobil is a US-based company. (3) Sarah Palin's going "nativist" with British Petroleum. So much for her commitment to our "allies." (4) Sarah's hubby Todd worked for 18 years for British Petroleum. Long time to hitch one's wagon and family livelihood to such an untrustworthy "foreign" company. (5) Trial lawyers are salivating at her stance that folks shouldn't "sign away remedy rights." How's that for some tort reform advocacy?

The woman is absolutely pathetic. Breathtakingly pathetic. Shockingly pathetic.

Sarah Palin: Tax Cheat

Link. By conservative standards, Sarah Palin wouldn't even be fit for a Federal Government job that requires Senate confirmation, much less for the job of VP or President.

The more we know about Palin, the more unfit she appears for any kind of leadership position in this country -- moral or otherwise.

Sarah Palin Is A "Birther"

Meaning, a person who supports the "freaky conspiracy theory" that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and is therefore not eligible to be President.

I guess I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Compare the two: Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.

Barack Obama has consistently said that Sarah Palin's family is out of bounds and has never even entertained, much less given credence to, the conspiracy theories out there that question Sarah Palin's parentage of Trig, her Down-Syndrome baby.

But here's another thing: Sarah Palin has claimed that she has proved that she is the mother of Trig by providing Trig's birth certificate to the public. Now I have zero doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin is Trig's mother, and I don't need to see a birth certificate to believe it. But the fact is that Sarah Palin has not, to my knowledge, ever provided Trig's birth certificate to the public as proof of her parentage of Trig. On the other hand, Obama has released a copy of his birth certificate, which has been repeatedly and independently confirmed as accurate by the Hawaii state officials that oversee such records, and which has been corroborated by a newspaper listing of Obama's birth in Hawaii. And yet Sarah Palin apparently doesn't believe her lying eyes!

It seems like every day we get re-confirmation of Sarah Palin's utter unseriousness and bald-faced mendacity. I'm not surprised by that, but what continues to astound me is that some smart conservatives seem to have no problem with this clown becoming President of the United States.