Run, Baby, Run? The Sarah Palin Sideshow—Scottsdale Edition

How can you say that a woman with her journalistic skills is vapid?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I never heard of that movie, does he ride a motorcycle in it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tim Robbin's character rode ahead of his campaign bus on his motorcycle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why can't I vote for the second and third option. I just don't know which one to pick.

Okay. . . I'll pick option two.

Am I allowed to say something about retardation running in the family or is that going too far?

~String

 

I have to disagree with the pundits and agree with Rove. I think Palin will run for POTUS regardless of what anyone here thinks. She will run an unconventional campaign, as she views herself as unconventional...and indeed she is.

The real question in my view is what impact will that have on the election results of 2012. I would be suprised to see her win the Republican nomination. I pray there is some degree of sanity and rational thought left in the American right. New York 26 should have been a clarion wakeup call to the American right wing. But if she fails to get the Republican nomination in 2012, I would not be suprised to see her run as a Tea Party alternative to the Republican Party. She is no McCain and has no great party loyalty. And if she does run as a Tea Party candidate against the Republican nominee, it would fatally divide the American right to the enduring benefit of the American people.

 

Putting everything else aside, I think she irrevocably damaged herself by not completing her tenure as governor of Alaska. If she couldn't stand the heat of being governor of Alaska, what business does she have asking for the much more stressful job of POTUS?

It does suggest that, despite all the uproar over the deficit, the American people are unwilling to do what needs to be done to fix it. Ironically, they do support a balanced budget amendment by more than a 2 to 1 margin.

So perhaps the thing to do is push for the balanced budget amendment. Get it passed. Then they'll be no choice but to reform entitlements.

Sadly, that route might take too long. We may just be fucked.

 

I agree. But it is much more just the fact she resigned as governor. I don't think Palin's followers are very concerned with facts or reason. Palin is more of a play on emotions.

She has no facts. She has no reason. She is simply a very effective peddler of hate and fear.

I don't think New York 26 says that the American people are unwilling to do what is necessary to bring the nation's finances in order. God forbid, that were true.

I think what what New York 26 very clearly says is that the American people, including Republicans, are not buying the solution offered by the Republican Party.

If the United States can just bring its healthcare expenses in line with that of other industrial countries we will have solved all our our medicare problems...reducing the expense in half. But then we have do decide to not let the special interests continue to rip us off.

A balanced budget can be a financial danger in and of it self and could prevent the nation from acting in the face of a national threat (e.g. The Great Recession of 2008 or some other natural or man made disaster). There is no substitute for good government in Washington or any where else for that matter.

 

A point I make to my Palin-loving-family; a point which they cannot refute.

~String

 

It says absolutely nothing about "The American People" any more than than Scott Brown getting elected in Massachusetts says something about "The American People". Unless, that is, the whole nation suddenly was given the right to vote on candidates outside their districts. If so, then, I stand corrected.

It does, however, say a lot about those specific districts and political events in those regions.

~String

 

Sure, you can interpret it that way. But unfortunately, the Democrats have chosen to not come up with a plan of their own. Their plan seems to be to sit back, do nothing, and demagogue any plan the Republicans come up with with disgusting ads like this:

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/05/paul-ryan-wants-to-kill-your.html

It's bad enough that the Democrats haven't put forward any plan of their own to achieve a balanced budget and deal with entitlements; but when they demagogue like this they prevent any serious conversation and are clearly putting party before the good of the nation.

 

There is no Tea Party. It doesn't exist, and cannot nominate candidates.

Palin might be valuable to the Republican corporate powers, for her ability to move the frame of discussion. If so, and if they are sure she won't slip the leash, they would want her to run for a while. And since that would also give her some more traction in the Fox/TeaParty trough (worth something like 12 million dollars so far, but likely to fade without retrenchment), she might be willing.

 

correct me if I'm wrong Madant but that just looks like a youtube video from some organisation called the Agenda Project rather than a sanctioned Democrat political ad as you seem to be claiming.

I've checked their website ( http://www.agendaproject.org ) and can't see anything about any direct affiliation with the Dems other than the fact that the founder worked from them around 15 years ago. At this moment in time they appear to be pretty evenly critical of both parties.

Do you have a reliable source that makes the connection or is this just the usual blogosphere propaganda that we have become used to from both sides?

 

Both sides of what?

It's exactly what we have become used to from Madanthony and his side only of this issue.

Or was that just the pro forma media disclaimer intended to inoculate the reader against any impression of negative bias toward the American right and its media presence,

an impression too easily generated by simple or unqualified recitation of facts, events, circumstances, quotes, and other reality based stuff?

 

The demagogue claim rings kind of hollow given the Republican/Tea Party response to healthcare reform last year - remember death panels and town halls?

Additionally the Republican plan really is not much of a plan. As it does little to restore the financial integrity of the nation. Other than restoring the Medicare donut hole immediately, we will have to wait 10 years before seeing real cuts in Medicare expenditures. As it will be 10 years before the Republican voucher program kicks in and even then it does not address the issue before the nation - spiraling heatlhcare costs.

The Republican plan shifts the cost from the federal government back to the individual which most individuals will not be able to afford. So it amounts to a rationing of healthcare and a shifting of healthcare cost to state and local governments - unless of course you want to let these folks die by withholding healthcare. At best the Republican budget plan is just pushing the problem down the road for another 10 years, which is exactly what the industry wants. It is clear to anyone who understands the issue, the US cannot continue to support its costly and inefficient healthcare system.

In order to get real reform and restore fiscal integrity to our nation we are going to need to reform our healthcare system using the proven models from our fellow industrial nations.

Democrats do have a plan as outlined by President Obama. It is not a plan favored by Republicans and their special interest backers. But it is a plan and a plan that is far better than the current Republican plan as it does attack the critical issue of spiraling healthcare costs. The Republican plan just prolongs the current agony in order to benefit their special interest financial backers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

 

I believe the Democrat plan rids the upper wealthy of their entitlements.

It hasn't been proven yet that a culture cannot sustain itself, by ridding itself of the gluttons at the top.

 

Palin is a fake "one-of-us".

Dustin Hoffman played her "big-mouth big-glasses one-of-us" shtick in the movie "Tootsie" (Without the trailer-trash patina).

Palin has been done to death. Both figuratively and spiritually.

 

I believe the Bolsheviks tried that strategy some time ago, with less than favorable results (millions dead).

 

That's because they tried armed rebellion and made the mistake that has been made in practically every violent revolution: they traded the power of one corrupt group for that of another.

This is not to say that it cannot be done by more peaceful means or should not be attempted by the society as a whole.

In America there is a group that mistakenly believes that there exist only two choices: Tyranny of the Government or Freedom. Which is just silly. There are meaningful ways to curtail the powers of those at the top without enhancing or centralizing powers, it's just that every attempt to do so is poisoned by partisan politics and caving to special interests which, inevitably, serve to preserve the power of those that the law seeks to curb.

And I'm not even asking for federally controlled/mandated health care or an expansion of the welfare state (those are things that I'm skeptical of). What I would love to see (but know that--at least for some time to come--will never see in the USA) is any meaningful diminishing of the powers that control or influence our government entities.

Because of most Americans ill-informed belief that--somehow--a society that restricts the influence of major corporations and non-profits is at the doorstep of tyranny (this myth propagated by those specifically threatened by such restrictions), we now are heading towards the opposite end of the spectrum: Tyranny of the Corporation and/or the Tyranny of the Government through the Corporation.

• We see this in non-government-entities like ChoicePoint that now collects massive amounts of information on American citizens, has cameras monitoring human activities all over the USA, sifts the internet for data and monitors credit and private banking activities and is PROTECTED under the constitution as "free to do what it chooses" as a private entity. It cannot be stopped. Even more interesting is who ChoicePoint's number 1 customer is: The Federal Government. Since the US government cannot do those things legally, it has just found a loophole in our civil rights and just buys the "public" data off a private corporation. To make matters worse, the Federal Government RENTS ChoicePoint space at low prices so that they can position their various monitoring equipment in public to carry out that monitoring. WHAT A DEAL!
  
• What else? There's also the fact that, in this very moment, you have massive conglomerates snatching up heritage farm land, destroying any competitiveness for family farms. What's wrong with this? Simple: Farming is a part of American heritage and should be protected. Our government isn't just an entity to protect us from "the bad guys", it's an extension of our society and should protect and preserve "who we are" as a society. What good is protecting us from invasion if what's left inside is nothing more than a rotting corpse? This could be done simply enough by making it illegal for corporations to own more than X amount of farm land and giving heritage / family farms a massive property protection (up to, say, 10 million dollars worth of farm land: some family ranches are worth that much) so long as the farm remains in family hands and is passed on to the family. This, currently, does not happen but for farms under 2 million dollars (IIRC, which is nothing for a large farm). The result: Family farms sold off the corporations just so the taxes could be paid. But this cannot happen because there are people in one corner who claim that any such law "infringes" on American rights, which is utterly ridiculous. The only right its infringing upon is that of large corporate behemoths who are literally altering the American landscape and running American farms into the ground through preventing the tax code to allow heritage farms to remain in family hands.
  
• What else? How about the fact that federal lobbying is, literally, pushing individual citizens out of the process of getting legislation written for the people. The Onion had an interestingly amusing peace that highlights this gap: In it "the American People" paid a lobbyist to court congressmen for their protection. It's about where we are now. From the moment a congressman steps food in DC to the moment he leaves office, he is besieged by massive interests that come--mostly--from the fringes of American political ideology. At no point is there a "middle ground" that gets represented.
  
• Then there is the fact that current corporations who invest gajillions of dollars finding more ways to get you to buy stuff you don't need, especially food that is plainly harmful to you and your kids. There could be meaningful ways to curb this; making it illegal to advertise to children; restricting the "free gifts" shit-food vendors attempt to use to bring children in; putting a meaningful tax on shit-food that is (yes, here's the dirty word) re-distributed to fund schools for--shit--reasonably healthy lunches or, hell, as a subsidy to bring down healthy food. Do you even remotely know how insanely expensive it is to eat healthy in the USA? I recently became a mostly-vegetarian (okay, pescatarian, but when I say that, people think I've converted) and my food costs have doubled. I have a "no boxed food" rule. Everything is bought fresh or flash frozen. I spend over $150 per week ON ME. I support MYSELF and I'm not buying "fancy" shit either. I do most of my shopping at a local Walmart or Meijer. There's no hope for a mother of 3 to feed her kids anything approaching healthy. She then sends her kids to school to suck down some of the worst food imaginable because--SHIT--they need to eat something. But any attempt to alter this is called "communism" and "a step towards tyranny", even if it's what "the people" want, it's prevented by--you guessed it--large interests who have no desire to see people eat healthy.
  
• There's also the spectacular case of Congress passing the new bankruptcy law that gives consumers practically no way out of debt. The typical conservative line is, "Well, they shouldn't have done it to begin with." But essentially misses the point that most of the people duped into debt are there because of large lenders playing on their fears of simple human weaknesses. Ever been to a college campus? Credit card company line the sidewalks duping students into getting into debt. The moment you go to a hospital in most states, lenders begin calling you to help you "pay for that procedure". They know you'll never be out of debt, that's precisely the point!

These fears and weaknesses existed years ago as well, but the credit laws prevented people from getting into too much debt by keeping the standard for borrowing massive amounts of money safely out of reach. We live in a consumption obsessed society and lenders are specifically driven to keep you paying on debt for your entire life. The government that serves us has an expressed mission from (in part) protecting us from those who play on our weaknesses. Humans are imperfect and company's that exploit those imperfections now have tyrannical control of massive sects of society.

Those who keep shouting "government control is not the answer" miss two important things:

• Government control can be an expression of "people control" if its permitted to actually be an expression of that. But since the process of giving people control over their government is thwarted at every turn, the government itself is not permitted to act on the people's behalf. Then it begins to act on corporate behalf and protects those corporate interests that destroy lives. Then is pays some of those corporations massive amounts of money to monitor its people just to circumvent what was intended to circumvent government power.
  
• It's like one of those self fulfilling prophesies. Politicians tell you that "government is not the answer" and in the few cases where it could be, the major special special interests prevent it from doing so; those interests are then given legislation that allows them to do business as usual keeping the American public safely in their pocket. In cases where meaningful legislation is actually passed, providing laws and oversight, those institutions are constantly bullet-holed by--in this case--Republicans (SEC and EPA come to mind) for years. Funding is cut and inept people are placed in important positions. When the process fails, the failure is then held up as an example of government failure and is used as an excuse to continue the total annihilation of a reasonable, for the people, fair and just government entity.

There is a middle ground, contrary to what many people tell you. It can be reached and done peacefully, with ZERO loss of individual freedom. It would start with rescinding corporate "personhood" as a constitutionally protected right. It might include taxes on the massive inheritances that are passed on from family to family creating an American aristocracy. Going forward, it could also include reasonable government protections of heritage industries and properties. Taking it a step further, it would include reasonable oversight over government bodies; and allowing government bodies to regulate the industries they were expressly created to oversee.

This is where I sincerely lean "left" in my views. The purpose of the government--IMHO--is to protect people from, at times, their own bad choices. That's the purpose of a republic. It keeps government officials safely in a position to make decisions for the people in--yep, you guessed it--an elitist distance and erudite fashion. A great article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1304694029-YAblU jJq1 HHxQkin3RUg.

We once had institutions in place to protect us from our own shortcomings. These laws are/were: labor protection laws that prevented people from sending their kids to work in factories; laws the prevented factories from harming workers; consumer protection laws that protected short sighted buyers from being exploited by shoddy quality in foodstuffs, medicine and machinery. Nobody calls that "communism" or "fascism". It's just good common sense, despite the fact that these laws protect people from their own bad choices (nobody forced people to buy crappy canned food that was packed with saw dust, or snake-oil sold as medicine). Know why? People need a bit of parenting because, when push comes to shove, people are weak and can be prayed upon by those more fortunate or powerful. The same applies now with many of the corporate interests today.

We don't get that anymore. The political discourse has become so polarized that one cannot even see the logic of a government program without being called a communist or a fascist or fashioning that government program to serve some larger interest that--itself--is in direct contrast to the American people.

~String

 

Very good String, well said. I agree.