Your Future POTUS

(a shot of Palin's hand from last night, her crib sheet, and yes she mocks Obama for using a Teleprompter, in fact she mocks the whole concept of Obama "are ya happy with all the hopey, changy" and his supporters like say me)

From Washington Monthly:
"...Palin fielded a few "pre-screened, pre-selected" questions. She was asked what Congress's top three priorities should be, if "conservatives" retake the majorities in both chambers. She said lawmakers' priorities should be to (1) cut federal spending, though she didn't say where, (2) adopt a conservative energy policy, and (3) turn to "our creator."...

This was her answer in its entirety: "I think, kind of tougher to...put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we're not afraid to say, especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we're not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know -- they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance on our creator."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022286.php

Drang nach Osten

From Wikipedia:
"Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East",[1] "thrust toward the East",[2] "push eastward",[3] "drive toward the East"[4] or "desire to push East"[5]) was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.[4] The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.[6] In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Eastern Europe, medieval military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights, and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi lebensraum concept..."

From Palin interview with Barbara Walters:
"PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
WALTERS: Even if it’s [in] Palestinian areas?
PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expand."

TW: I am not equating Drang nach Osten with Israeli policy. I am equating their policy with colonialism which in this day and age should raise serious red flags. In fairness to the Germans relative to Drang nach Osten, numerous Western powers created bullshit arguments for their own colonial ambitions.

The Palin quote though shows what happens when immature, ill-informed folks attempt to articulate policy without having the basis to do so. Consistently when faced with the most rudimentary policy questions, Palin issues incoherent or worse dangerous rhetoric. This particular stance on settlements is the proto neo-con position supported by many fundamentalist Christians as well. Usually more artfully stated (in a way I suppose) by relying upon biblical texts etc. rather than the bald-faced population expansion angle. Being a "real" person means many things to many people, but it should not mean placing a Palin type person on a stage in which she could do great harm to our national interests.

Deep Thoughts

"If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?"
-- Ms. Palin in her tome "Going Rogue"

TW: I am still pondering this one...

Stewart Nails Another One

Daily Show: The Rogue Warrior

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

TW: Stewart nails the Palin thing like no other...his riff starts about 3:00 minutes into the clip although the Lieberman tangent is good too (and shame on Ratigan! that sloppiness feeds Palidiocy).

Re the Poseur Known As Palin

TW: With the release of her "book" we will be subjected to noxious amounts of coverage of this poseur. My only comment is to refer to the subject list to the right under "Sarah Palin" or "Dave" (named of course after the movie of the same name). There one will find actual interviews where the depths of this person's alleged qualifications are plain for even the most biased viewer. In addition, posts outlining the sad statement this person's existence within American political culture makes about us as a nation are available. We are a serious nation with serious challenges but we continually veer off course with these fools and jackals.

We Have Different Version Of "Variety"

From Ms. Palin on her upcoming media tour for her "book" via Sullivan:
"An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I’m also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O’Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!)," - Sarah Palin.

TW: That quote frames nicely the parallel universe in which about 20-25% of our country inhabits. That list is "variety"- two celebrity interviewers, 31 flavors of right wing propagandists, and zero folks who would actually ask a journalistically challenging question. The echo chambers live on.

This Could Have Been Your VPOTUS

TW: We posted this last Fall, but I thought it a useful reminder of the type depth and nuance to which our country might have been exposed had we only elected a "real" American into office. It is easy to forget we were not really that far from a very...concerning precipice. It puts perspective on whatever challenges folks have with Obama's style and substance.

End Of Life ABC Fact Check

TW: Given the insanity of the town halls, it is tempting to retort with much emotion. Will try to retort with facts (although as the right wing-nuts typically say, one should meet force with force so I make no emotion will be part of the response). This was a concise, ABC rebuttal of the Palinesque, Limbovian demagoguery.

Meet the 2012 Republican Nominee

TW: He was a frightfully dull campaigner in 2008 and he will likely get a strong challenge from a cultural conservative of some sort (my money right now is on Haley Barbour, assuming unlike several of his peers he has kept his winky in order), but Mitt Romney will be the 2012 Republican nominee.

He has economic chops and those will come in handy if the economy is still struggling as it very well might be come 2011 (when the Republican nominee will be chosen in substance, they do not go for the long, drawn out primary seasons). As the story mentions while other candidates get the pub he is quietly accumulating his own warchest.

From Economist:
"IN FIVE months, Sarah Palin's political action committee SarahPAC raised $733,000. That's not bad for a governor whose political base in Alaska is not that large, and whose last five months have largely been spent fighting bad headlines and family turmoils. But another relevant number for Mrs Palin might be $1.4m. That's how much Mitt Romney, the erstwhile presidential candidate from Massachusetts, raised in an identical period from January to May.
It may be too early to discuss Mrs Palin's plans for 2012, but Mr Romney seems like a sure bet to run again for the presidency. Working under the radar, while his fellow Republicans have been imploding in one way or another, Mr Romney has quietly banked campaign funds, spoken at candidate events, and carved out some work as a commentator on financial issues. Mrs Palin has reportedly raised $200,000 since announcing her resignation from office, but she can only do that once. For all the attention she's getting, the people who typically choose the party's nominee are quietly promoting a safer, richer, less-bloodied-by-the-2008-election choice."

You Reap What You Sow: Tea-Bag Away

TW: This video of TX Senator and pretty darn conservative John Coryn getting grief at this past weekend's tea-bagging event is getting much play. His sin, voting for last Fall's financial bailout (the one that kept your ATM functioning) and not speaking out more vociferously for Hooverite contractionary fiscal policy amidst the Great Contraction. These events speak to the challenge Republicans face if their base is a blood-thirsty, anti-intellectual, unfettered populist (not to mention not very diverse) group of folks, who are merely confused and afraid and grasping at straws. The Republicans cannot really run away from this movement (which Fox is featured daily at the Fox Nation), but to embrace them is cancerous.

And who is the one Republican politician who would achieve rapturous applause at any of these events? I shall not mention her name.

From TPM:
"...The tea party in Boiling Springs, South Carolina, featured a colorful cast of characters. The headline speaker was Alan Keyes, who has been a leading name of the "Birther" movement. Lead organizer Michael Brady came dressed up as Thomas Paine -- who in real life was a left-winger in favor of progressive taxation and opposed to traditional religion. One attendee took out a flyer that said, "Zelaya today, Obama tomorrow," but said he was advocating impeachment of Obama after he was asked directly whether he was in favor of a coup..."

"Dave" Palin Morphs Into "Gloria" Palin

(h/t pourmecoffee blog for the idea)

TW: I chose out of respect to our national holiday to not post on Ms. Palin yesterday. And the blogosphere is crammed with takes on Ms. Palin. Yet I have decided to give it one more comment then I will move on (until of course the next great twist in the drama).

Last fall when she was first thrust cynically onto the national scene I called her Sarah "Dave" Palin after the charming Kevin Kline character from the film of the same name. "Dave" was an innocent, normal yet imminently unqualified person thrust into the role of POTUS due to convoluted circumstances. Dave's handlers did their best to disguise his true identity by filling him with just enough facts to make him seem real. I thought the title relevant for Palin last fall and still do.

My net net on her latest evolution:
1) I could care less about all of possible reasons for her move, the speculation is tedious and ultimately irrelevant (note should it develop that she has a tragic family or health issue then obviously that would change things but her "speech" was not consistent with that reason but given the below anything is possible).

2) She is corrosive to the Republican party. She is just viable enough as a national figure that the more rational elements of her party (i.e. David Frum, Mike Murphy, Peggy Noonan, George Will etc.) feel obligated to react to her respectively and seriously if tepidly. She cannot be dismissed as a crackpot. Concurrently the fire-breathers (i.e. Bill Kristol, hard-core wrongy bloggers, National Review, Fox News, Rush etc.) are sucked into actually rationalizing her behaviors which only diminish their already seriously strained credibilty.

The Dems on the other hand have a free-fire zone because...

3) She is batshit insane.

4) To quote Mr. John Mellencamp:
"Well I was born in a small town
And I live in a small town
Prob'ly die in a small town
Oh, those small communities

All my friends are so small town
My parents live in the same small town
My job is so small town
Provides little opportunity

Educated in a small town
Taught the fear of Jesus in a small town
Used to daydream in that small town
Another boring romantic that's me..."

I like small towns and had plenty of exposure to them growing up. Small towns are great. One can lead a wonderful life in a small town, become a great parent, a good leader etc. But one could also, if never moving beyond that town; think if one were the class valedictorian for instance, that you were the smartest person ever; or the town's top business person that you were the smartest business person ever; or the fastest athlete that you were pretty fast etc.

But of course there is a big world out there with folks with an incredible realm of diversity operating at extraordinary levels of accomplishment. To never gain exposure to those environments risks warping one's ego.

Ms. Palin epitomizes the "big fish in a small pond". She has spent her entire life personally, educationally, and professionally in small venues. She actually thinks her life perspectives to be broad, her talents extraordinary and her ambition to be POTUS sane. She combines these attributes with indomitable will, this is a potent and destructive combination.

She exhibits the worst attribute of a potential leader, she is so immature and isolated that she does not know what she does not know. She thinks she is running for POTUS but instead risks plunging into insanity. For her sake she should take a big step back and reflect on her status.

She will not because she has tasted the nectar of vociferous adulation and hero worship and it was intoxicating. Like Gloria Swanson, she will be back for more until, of course, the lights go out.

Oh the Platitudes

TW: She is stunningly, cloyingly incompetent. A must see. If this person was running for mayor of Wassila I would say fine!!! But this person thinks she should be POTUS.

How many platitudes can one cram (and repeat) into a six minute speech. And she is resigning because "this point guard is being smeared" by unnamed enemies therefore she needs to quit her job in order to go to battle; and her infant child, the one she deploys (disgracefully) like a cheap prop at every turn, has been subject to derision; and by god she wants to fight for our soldiers.

Palin Resigns As Governor

TW: I understand amidst this Great Contraction being governor of any state is not the best platform from which to build a basis for higher office- declining revenues, rising costs and general voter angst and all. Tim Pawlenty saw that in MN and announced he would not run for re-election and the Governator probably wishes he had not sought re-election in CA.

Then you have the bopsie triplets- Mark Sanford said "F it what do I care, I am in love", preceded by the Blagojocrook, and Eliot "I pay to play" Spitzer-all have blown up in the past year.

But can you set yourself up any better than Ms. Palin has this week. A completely inane cheesecake piece in Runner's World ("sweat is my sanity"), your former campaign managers debating how crazy you are then the capper- resigning your office amidst the Great Contraction no less "because she has accomplished her goals". Talk about cuttin' and runnin'.

Funny how in a petro state one's approval can drop from 90ish% to below 50% pretty darn quickly. She is a corker.

I REALLY hope this does not mean she is considering NOT running. Because as much as I viscerally despise the concept of Ms. Palin, I would really miss her. If there is one thing that could get the Dems to a true super-majority amidst the Great Contraction in 2010 it would be her at the head of the ticket.

This quote gives me hope:

From WaPo:
"The first term governor is stepping down "so that she can take the fight for her issues elsewhere," according to a Palin aide."

This person's ambitions are high, perhaps to the point of self-delusion....YES!!!

Ms. Palin And the Politics Of Nothingness

From Taegen Goodard:
"A great frustration I had during the campaign was when the McCain staff wouldn't carve out time for me to go for a run." - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in an interview with Runner's World, slipping in another dig about her campaign handlers.

TW: This quote from Ms. Palin caught my eye as a metaphor for her political career. Ms. Palin periodically makes it into the news, but if one reviews why it is always for the same thing- process BS about her complaining about something related to coverage of her (i.e. the Letterman thing) or someone else taking potshots (i.e. the latest Vanity Fair piece where McCain staffers rip her and the Politico piece where other Republicans rip other Republicans for how they rip Palin) or else just flat out inane whining like the above. In other words nothing of substance.

She is a politician whose only contribution to the national dialogue is her caricatures (from enemies and allies) and debating whether the caricatures are sufficiently fair and/or accurate. She is not one to add any substance to say addressing our fiscal challenges, relations with Iran, reducing income disparities, addressing climate change etc. Name one instance since November where she has participated substantively in the national governance dialogue. She is all pomp and no circumstance. She is a disservice to her party and her country.

What Would We Do?

TW: Political Daily is another new entrant into the web site field. It is notable being started by refugees from MSM. Regardless, this piece intrigued not so much for its core purpose- to question the need for prosecution of torture facilitators- but for the issue of whether its background premise is valid. The piece assumes a hypothetical right-wing conservative takeover of the White House in 2012 due to a spectacular terrorist attack prior to the election.

What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.

Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?

My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.

ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.

From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.

"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."

Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.

Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/

If This Is the Best They Have...

TW: So Romney, Huckabee and Palin have started 2012 PACs. No one knows what the environment in 2012 will be. One of the challenges for the opposing party is motivating their truly big hitters to take on an incumbent. Given the ridiculously long process these days, the political environment can change far after the primary candidates stake their turf. How did we end up with John Kerry and Howard Dean as the Dems in '04? Things did not look so promising for a Dem in late 2002 and early 2003 (same concept opened the door for an unknown Bill Clinton in 1991 post Gulf War when G.H. Bush seemed unassailable). Would a Gore or Hillary Clinton have won in 2004, who knows?

The Republicans barring catastrophe will likely feel the same way come late 2010 and early 2011. Therefore, re-treads like Romney/Palin may be the likely candidates, a circular problem for the opposition. Nevertheless it has been awhile since we bashed Ms. Palin but fret not.

From Economist:
"And what of Ms Palin's chances? I have seen her interact with voters. She has huge appeal among a segment of the Republican base. After a rally of hers, one man told me that she was like Ruth—as in, from the Old Testament—that she was the last hope to save America. More often, I heard about how she was "just like me" from seemingly dozens of conservative women. She will definitely rile some folks in western Iowa. But, unless she surrounds herself with better advisers who can force her to learn more about national issues—and unless she learns to speak about them with fluency rather than dismissive ignorance—she will be little more than a high-profile, polarising also-ran. So far, she has done neither"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/01/palin_begins.cfm

The Conservative Of the Year: Sarah Palin

TW: Anne Coulter has written just a fine column on why Human Events magazine has named Sarah Palin "Conservative Of the Year". Coulter is the poster child for the sytle of conservatism that shames those serious conservatives who actually have relevant ideas. Naturally Coulter seriously hearts Palin who personfies that brand of conservatism which relishes ignorance and wallows in its own insecurities and resentments. If Palin truly is the Conservative of the Year then that pretty much tells you where conservatism stands.

From Coulter Human Events:
"...I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair...

It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy. I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate...[TW: I guess Ms. Coulter missed the whole Obama is a Muslim thing]...

Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports...

Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. [TW: are u kidding me?!!] Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule...[TW: real classy Coutler is not...]

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain. Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country..."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29995

TW: ps Coulter claims Human Events was Ronald Reagan's favorite mag...go figure...

An Alternative Universe- The National Review

TW: Perhaps this column from the National Review is meant with pure sarcasm, but somehow I think not. Despite the election of Barack Obama being greeted with worldwide acclaim and his entry into actual office regarded as one of the very few potential hopes to lift our nation (and perhaps the world) out of a extremely serious funk (and oh by the way first person of color etc.), this columist makes the case for Sarah Palin as Time's person of the year. The columnist even fantasizes about what a straight up Palin v. Obama election would have been like. To me it just shows once again the alternate universe into which many on the right have let themselves descend.

From Lopez at National Review:
"I suspect that when Time magazine chooses their Person of the Year for 2008, there will be little internal debate. They’ve probably long picked The One — Barack Obama. After all, more than half the country went and elected him the next president of the United States [TW ummm not a trivial fact heh?]...

But Time...shouldn’t ignore the people who were energized by the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket...Here at National Review’s post-election cruise, a group gathered for a weeklong post-mortem on the high seas has Palin on the brain. Palin’s not on ship, but neither her absence nor the McCain loss has dampened enthusiasm for her here...

Some will to this day compare her to Ronald Reagan. Why is this? It’s about her simple and clear patriotism, and, frankly, her forthright belief system compared to a now president-elect who was comfortable being friends with a domestic terrorist....

Palin offered something different. For some it was an anti-Washington feel. Many consider her a refreshing citizen-politician in the old mold, one that Thomas Jefferson would be proud to meet. Does that make her just like Obama? I do wonder what the campaign would have been like had they both been at the helm: He wouldn’t have had a monopoly on change, and she would have had her own staff and freedom to follow her instincts, and perhaps better advice than she was given as she ran for vice president. We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest ...Time would make a mistake if it ignored the Palin phenom this year just because the ticket didn’t win in the end"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTNkNmFjNWFiZDNhZDQxNmM1MWQ3OWU3ZGM1YTg2YmQ=

The Greatest Hits You Knew It Was Coming

TW: Yes it is piling on at this point but I did not foist this not ready for primetime time person into the nomination, John McCain did.

Debunking Mythology

As mentioned previously, the Obama campaign is now releasing detailed memos rebutting point by point (footnoted) the myths being propagated by McCain

Key myths addressed in this memo include amongst others:
1) McCain Myth: Palin Visited Troops In Iraq
2) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Fiscal Conservative
3) McCain Myth: Palin Has Succeeded in Signing a Deal to Build Alaska’s Long-Stalled Gas Pipeline
4) McCain Myth: Palin’s Energy Experience Will Lower Gas Prices and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
5) McCain Palin Myth: Sarah Palin Told Congress “Thanks But No Thanks” On That Bridge to Nowhere
6) McCain Myth: Sarah Palin NEVER Sought Earmarks As Governor
7) McCain Myth: Palin Cut Taxes
8) McCain Myth: Palin Is a Reformer Who Brought Ethics Back to Alaskan Politics

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-the-straight-talk-express/