Monday, July 06, 2009

Before the flame out

In lieu of original content by Yours Truly today, here's an exhaustive article on Alaska's NonGovernor Sarah Palin by Todd Purdum for Vanity Fair. It's a fascinating read all about poor little Sarah's problems notable for many reasons, but in no small part because it was published just before her spectacular flame out.

The great Republican Governor. Yeah, yeah. She couldn't even tough out one term. Christ awmighty, people, I told you she was a silly little broad from the get go.


deangc said...

There is no better marker for the Republican party's descent into wild-eyed fuckbaggery than their embrace of that woman.

eviljwinter said...

What's pathetic is the way she threatens to sue people when they criticize her or whines about how put upon she is when someone says something bad.

About the only thing she has to complain about is David Letterman.

That's it. All this bullshit about how she's a liberal target and no one understands her is nothing more than someone with too thin a skin to be in politics.

Good riddance.

Big Mark 243 said...

Wow ... evil, dean ... why not tell everyone how you really feel about Sarah Palin?

There is a saying ... you can't make a 'ho' a housewife ... and you sure can't make frozen piece of trailer trash a political figure ...

(S)wine said...

no one understand her because she doesn't fucking speak English. she's on par w/that Ms. South Carolina shit we all laughed at: "...a lot of people don't have maps of THE Iraq and such..."
wtf? this country is a brilliant cesspool of idiotic douchebaggery.

Tony said...

Id like to see her disappear from the political scene, but she's too stupid to recognize what a liability she is. Unfortunately we can expect more garbage from Ms. Palin.

Anonymous said...

You commiefaggotbabykillingliberals will never understand responding to a higher calling. She's the frontrunner for the Kirstie Alley part in the remake of "Drop Dead Gorgeous."


jonas said...


"Drop Dead Gorgeous" is one of the funniest movies of all time, tho few know about it. Thus, I appreciate the reference. KA does a great job in that flick and it would be a complete bastardization to have Palin anywhere near it....except of the accent. And the constant Jebusizing. Oh, and the guns. And family. And the look.

Wait, you might be on to something. Well done.

philbilly said...

Cue the ranting righties defense of Barelycoulda, oops, I mean Barracuda, yeah that's it....

John Ettorre said...

As it happens, I just read that on the hammock last night. Dee Dee Myers' hubby did his usual thorough reporting job. Let's hope this means we've seen the last of this loony tunes in politics, but I fear not.

Harry Finch said...

Ms Palin is stepping down because she loves her country, as well for personal reasons. America was expecting a Republican governor to call it quits last week, but since Mark Sanford wouldn't do it, she stepped forward and did the right thing. And on the personal level, she had to do something dramatic to prove she's as big a freak as Michael Jackson.

Anonymous said...

I wish I could take credit but I can't... comment from another blog:

"How long do we have to wait before we ask her to iron and make us a sammich?"


Dudesworthy said...

I'm totally campaigning for Palin to run in 2012.

She is such a swivel-eyed monster that there is absolutely no way that she could possibly attract even a single liberal or centrist voter. In fact, think she would have difficulty in getting centre-right voters to support her bid.

Her running would guarantee a second Obama term (much as it guaranteed the first Obama term...)

So Palin don't be failin' now!

Erin O'Brien said...

Been out all day at an amusement park with the fam. I am gassed out. Will be back tomorrow with something smart to say.

You guys rock my face off.

caleb said...

not related, but think you'll like it


jonas said...

I read the the article. The picture it paints is obviously not one of a woman who I'd be comfortable being #2. Now, it would have been nice f the guy had covered some of her accomplishments as well. Has she been in any way an effective gov.? Did she make good on campaign promises? He gets at a bit of the oil tax/revenue stuff. But, he points out the very argument I made on this here blog: handing back $3K per resident sounds a whole lot like a redistribution of wealth. One of many inconsistencies of her story.

Anyway, an interesting, if slightly depressing read: people really thought (and still seem to think) that she was someone who would help lead this country. I suppose if you ignore all the obvious flaws and just concentrate on jingoist nonsense, she's palatable, from a particular perspective. Sadly, it make McCain and his staff look all the worse.

Ah well. If nothing else, I hope the 'Palin Experiment' (I say that in hopes of never hearing from her again) will prove an important lesson for future candidates and voters: 1) prolly a good idea to actually know the person you're choosing as a running-mate 2) Americans can be conned into believing just about anything (tho, I thought we figured that out already) 3) race and gender seem to still matter more than they should 4) see #1

The next 3-4 years are going to be interesting...

Al The Retired Army Guy said...


What, you're not going to call her "sugartits" or somehing? I'm disappointed.


Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Something, that is. Sorry for the spelling error.

Erin O'Brien said...

Al, I appreciate your dissenting voice here, but Missy Palin is a big girl. If she was posed to be #2, she can surely handle a snarky blogger from Ohio, right?

Did you see Obama bellyaching about all those zillions of people accusing him of not producing a birth certificate? Did he rail against those who swore Ayers ghost-wrote his novels? Those are the only two I can thing of for now. See Fox News archives for more gasbag anti-Obama accusations.

I agree that 'twas not the media that slay Palin, it was McCain killed Palin.

The righties are predictably amassing behind her. Good luck in 2012. From now on, she'll only garner support from the freaky Palin fans. As dudesworthy said, no centrist will support her in 2012.

Wait. They didn't support her in 2008. Neither did many Republicans, like, say COLIN POWELL.

Jonas, you're right about the article not being very fair. But you know what? TOUGH SHIT. McCain's campaign didn't do a very good job of bringing her more mundane credentials to light either. Oh wait, I forgot. She sold the state's plane on eBay.

gurgle gurgle gurgle

jonas said...

You know, on the one hand, I do sort of appreciate the idea that someone who is not a Washington pro, a 30yr lawyer, or the son of someone of that pedigree could make their way up the chain. But on the other, she did it way too quickly, with far too little experience, or grasp of what was going on. McCain gets the real blame here. A last ditch effort for his last ditch effort.

If 1/2 of what that article reveals is true, it would seem that its perhaps only her ambition that makes her suited for office. And that's about it.

deangc said...

One more thing: all the babble about how HAWT she is... I disagree. She's got a phony surface sheen to her, a sort of beauty-queen hairspray-layered gloss. But look deeper and you see the hard stare of the fanatic. She is so ambitious that she is unable to acknowledge (or, more likely, comprehend) that she is in over her head. The Republican party is so desperate that they may to do the same.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...


With respect, I think Gov. Palin could care less about snarky bloggers, regardless of where they come from. Based on what I've read and seen, her decision to step down is based on the costs of ethics investigations involving her (costs being paid by the state of Alaska), the toll these investigations and media scrutiny is taking on her and her family, and perhaps the beginning of a run for the White House in 2012. What's the true reason? I can only speculate. I do know she is stepping down, and I'm not personally passing judgment. Until I've been there and through the same things as she has, I'm not going to call her a wimp, not tough enough, etc.

As to who will support her in 2012 should she decide to run, no one, including you and I can predict that. We shall see.

Finally, Colin Powell didn't support McCain or Palin, I think, for a lot of reasons. My take is he was marginalized by the Bush Administration, told to go to the UN and make the case for Iraq with what turned out to be faulty intelligence, and ignored when it came to handling the mess it became. Should it be any surprise that he wouldn't endorse McCain or any other Republican running for office? I think not, especially as the Dems tied McCain to Bush very effectively (they would have tied any Republican running to Bush - McCain just happened to be the one running). Powell's treatment by the Bush Administration is more indicative of his non-support of McCain/Palin than the argument that centrists/"many Republicans" (if you have the stats on that, I'd like to see them) didn't either for the reasons you and others raise here.

But that's OK - if General/Secretary Powell couldn't in good faith support McCain or anyone else, so be it, for whatever reason, both private and public. We are a republic, and he has a right to support or not support anyone he wants to. Speaking only for myself, I could care less that he chose to support Obama.

BTW, this is one Republican who supported McCain/Palin. After watching what Obama and crew have been doing the last six months, that support was well warranted in my view.


jonas said...

Hey Al,

Question for you: I've read many a comment these days about how Obama is really screwing us and he's not living up to his promises, etc. Not your comments, just in general. But, most echo your sentiment: we'd have been better off with McCain/Palin. However, I've yet to read and explanation as to why that would be the case. That is, how can any of us know what those two would have been doing for the last 6 months? Things could be 100 times better, or 100 times worse.

So, from your perspective, based on what we or you know (as opposed to what we speculate), why would M/P have been the better choice? Honestly curious.

Erin O'Brien said...

The people's overwhelming confidence in Obama is what kept the country from falling off the edge. Would we have seen that with McPalin? Who knows.

I am most pleased with Obama's foreign policy endeavors. I've been wanting to apologize to the world for Bush's warmongering for years. Finally, Obama is a an intelligent and accessible American representative on the world scene. Thank God.

I am least pleased with his dealing with the banks and healthcare. I'd like to see more much more stringent regulation on the banks and a more forceful push for the slow but sure expansion of government medical coverage such as Medicare (incidentally, why aren't all the righties protesting that program?).

But the country was in a big-ass mess on Jan. 21, 2009 and it's still early in Obama's presidency.

Dudesworthy said...

Al said:

Powell's treatment by the Bush Administration is more indicative of his non-support of McCain/Palin than the argument that centrists/"many Republicans" (if you have the stats on that, I'd like to see them) didn't either for the reasons you and others raise here.

I do believe those stats are available and are best summarized by the fact that McCain/Palin lost the election.

Despite all his faults Bush increased his share of the vote on his re-election, while McCain had one of the worst results of any Rep Candidate ever. Its not a stretch to suggest that McCain did something to scare way Bush's supporters and its not definitely not a stretch to suggest that Palin may have been that something.

Palin will not defeat Obama in an election because she only appeals to the GOP's base and she is utterly incapable of reaching outside of it.

Let's hope its Palin Sailin' in 2012!

Lord Basil said...

Another hit piece from the liberal media. No surprises here, and if you look closely at Sarah, everything she does refutes the silly allegations here.

The fact is that liberals are terrified of Sarah, and even more terrified because she is a conservative woman, and they will throw the kitchen sink at her if they have to, and they have. I have a feeling that she will use her time away from Alaska to effectively mount a campaign that will result in a historic 50 state sweep, and send the Marxists in DC back where they came from.

Sarah Barracuda in '12!

Kirk Jusko said...

You might recall during last fall's campaign, Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists" And NOW she complains about political attacks? To paraphrase the recently departed Michael Jackson, perhaps she should start with the woman in the mirror.

Harry Finch said...

Lord Basil is correct. I am terrified of Sarah Palin.

Anyone claiming that only dead fish go with the flow betrays a frightening lack of knowledge about the nature of water.

Anonymous said...

For Lord Basil et al:

Acts 4:32 - 35. The Bible.

“And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: and not one said that any of the things which he possessed, was his own; but all things were in common unto them.”

“For neither was there anyone needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to everyone, according as had need."

Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program", 1875.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

See ya at the polls.

RJ (aka The Proletariat)

Al The Retired Army Guy said...


After doing a little research (,,, etc.), I know that McCain wouldn't have raised taxes on the middle class (which I suspect will be forthcoming from the Obama administration - all the things he wants to do cost money, after all), would have made mortgage lenders re-structure mortgages so folks could afford them, would have worked to make Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security more solvent than they are, given a tax credit to taxpayers ($2,500 for individuals, $5000 for families) so they could have bought their own health insurance, etc. He also supported a strong national defense (and still does), meaning that when he used diplomacy, he would be negotiating from a position of strength. He supports a strong missile defense, ever more important these days as the North Koreans continue to ramp up their nuke program, not to mention the Iranians. He is and was always one of those folks in the Senate (and yes, there are Democrats like this too) that are against pork barrel spending and for the line item veto.

From all of this, I think it's safe to say you wouldn't have seen John McCain offering an olive branch to the nut jobs in Iran, sitting on his behind as Iranians take to the streets, apologizing for taking the fight to our sworn enemies (also known as the Taliban, Al Qaida, non-state terrorists, etc.), etc. In terms of stimulating the economy, I don't think he would have allowed a "stimulus package" laden with pork to go through, and which has yet to stimulate much of anything if unemployment figures are any indication.

We'd be better off simply because unlike Obama, McCain knows you can't spend your way out of a recession. As to Erin's assertion that the American people have "overwhelming confidence" in him, approval polls generally are a snapshot in time. I'll reserve judgment until about 6 months from now. New presidents (even George W.) had high numbers initially; over time they went down. I suspect it will be the same for Obama.


Bush's warmongering? Yeah, I guess that's what he was doing when a bunch of terrorists drove airplanes into buildings. Yes, I know you're going to say Iraq was warmongering, and you know well that I too had reservations about that one. But there is no way anyone will tell me that going into Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban (which aided and abetted the organization which planned and executed the 9-11 attacks) and Al Qaida was warmongering. We were attacked, knew who did it, where they came from and who supported them. What else were we supposed to do? Pull an Obama, go to the UN, and get them to send a letter to Mullah Omar and tell him how angry we are at him? Sorry, we'll have to disagree here.


Dudesworthy said...

Basil ol' boy, I am scared of Palin but not for the reasons you're thinking.

To maintain a true democracy we require at least 2 functioning political parties. It would be better for the country to have a real election and a real debate in 2012 but Palin simply is not capable of that. If the Republican party chooses her it will disintegrate and we will lack an effective opposition to hold the government to account.

(Also suggesting that Obama is a Marxist is just silly; he's clearly a Third Way politician with a realpolitik foreign policy)

Anonymous said...

Jonas you're right Obama is not a Marxist, he's a centrist. Witness his refusal to pursue a single payor system of national health care. The REAL left is none to happy about that, his hesitance about pushing gay equality and his refusal to release the additional photos of torture pepetrated by thugs in the military and demand a full accounting of who greenlighted that bullshit. You really want to freak "The Right" out lets put Dr. Cornell West in The Whitehouse, then they can holler about "The Left." I willingly stipulate not ALL military are thugs. In addition, Obama has been unequivical about Al Queda. We need to defeat them and find bin Laden and kill him. Al is exactly rightin saying We were attacked, knew who did it, where they came from and who supported them. And I know he has stated he had real trepidation about Iraq. But the neocons in the Whitehouse and Pentagon didn't and the one person that could've changed the course of history didn't, ergo I think it's fair to lay reponsibility for foreign policy failures of the last eight years at Bush II's doorstep.


Anonymous said...

Oh yeah Al,

Where were all the freedom fighters when the Chinese military were gunning down their own people in Tiannemen Square with a replica of The Statue of Liberty bearing witness? I do believe John McCain was in the Senate and George H. W. Bush was in the Whitehouse. I guess they were to busy with those pesky Nicaraguans, Panamanians or Grenadians huh? And for God's sake will someone say it. THE FUCKING ISRAELI'S HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! If they truly thought Saddam or the Supreme Ayatollah had nukes aimed at them they'd light up western asia like a fucking midway with absolutely no consultation with the international community. AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


Ken Houghton said...

Jonas, sorry can't let this--"is not a Washington pro, a 30yr lawyer, or the son of someone of that pedigree could make their way up the chain"--go by.

You mean like the Mayflower Millionairess??

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

The great thing about beating one's head against the wall is that it feels so good when one stops.

I've said my piece, and nothing else I say in this thread will change anyone's mind.

I'm out on this one.


jonas said...


Interesting find. I suppose you have a point, in that, white $$ has the advantage. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Which is to say, my fault for being nice. :)

And RJ, didn't call BO a Marxist. Are there any Marxists? Was Marx a Marxist? But, you know the answers to all of that.

Anonymous said...

"I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury."

Groucho Marx


philbilly said...

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, and this wasn't it."

Groucho Marx

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Nothing says Obama like Palin 2012.

Go Sarah.

UPDATE: If Michael Jackson is finished being dead, they're beating the shit out of the Chinese again.

jonas said...


I agree with you in principle, that McCain's positions are/were different on spending and taxes. That said, the f'in bottom fell out of large sections of the economy, before, during, and after the election. We really have no idea what McCain would have done. I do believe Bush I did promise not to raise taxes once, rather infamously. I'm just saying, hard to be sure on anything like "what if" based on campaign promises.

As for national defense...yes, there are cuts being made. No one seems to want to fund the F-22 anymore (too bad...beautiful bird). And, I'm sure, lots of other things. Nonetheless, I can't see us now, or in the future, ever being in a position of defense weakness. Should our troops on the ground get everything they need? Of course. Are they? Prolly not. Pretty sure Obama isn't singularly in charge of such things. But, in relation to whom would we ever be considered anything but strong, militarily? Missile defense re: Korea? Everything I read makes it sound like that nutjob's program is 1/2-assed at best. And, say he gets a nuke on a rocket, are we REALLY afraid he'll come at us with it? Methinks not. And if he points it south, to take a isolationist stance here, isn't that their problem? Or, the UNs? My point is, taking that guy seriously seems to be playing into his own wishes.

Now, olive-branch diplomacy...
Here's my take: prior to Obama, we dealt with Iran NOT with an olive-branch, right? The result? They continued to build their nuke program. So, it would seem that tactic didn't help. Why not talk to them? Why not be the calming power? Why not at least try the "hey, we're being the nice guy here" approach. Cuz, if shit hits the fan, we'd be starting from a far more righteous position in the world order. Besides, if Mr. "There are no homosexuals in Iran" gets an itchy trigger finger, you know damn well we ain't going to be the first ones in that fracas. Our proxies in the Holy Land seem more than willing to bring the heat. And of course, we pay for a goodly amount of that heat.

Now, that's all over simplified. But my point is, I don't see Obama being responsible for weakening us in any significant way. If Congress won't pony up the money from troop support, that's not Obama. Also, I've spoken to people who've recently been in Egypt and they report a palatable, positive difference in the air regarding attitudes toward the U.S. If that is any indication of whats happening in the world, that's not weakening, that's strengthening.

The economic stuff....yeah, I haven't paid enough attention...but I do get the sense that some of the stimulus stuff is not going as well as it should. But hell, how simple and easy was it going to be? Its been 6 months. I'm not quiet ready to say I backed the wrong horse, given all the circumstances. Obama inherited a shitpile. I don't expect gold quite yet.

Kirk Jusko said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Jusko said...

John McCain is often referred to, by himself and others, as a "maverick". When it comes to his personal dealings with others, he may very well be a maverick, in the "I don't take no shit from nobody!" sense of the word. As for his wider take on the world, however, he's all convention. Remember, when the banking crisis hit, his first instinct was to support the establishment, to stick up for the status quo: "The fundamentals of the economy are still strong!"