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

Neat and Tidy

Source: MSNBC
Link: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/27/6732550-rolling-thunder-sarah-palin-not-invited
Title: "Rolling Thunder: Sarah Palin not invited", by Andrea Mitchell and Lauren Stephenson
Date: May 27, 2011

Well, that answers the question nicely. I like it when everything wraps up in a neat little package.

One day after Sarah Palin announced her bus tour, a group sponsoring a Memorial Day weekend event she plans to attend said they never invited her.

"She wasn't invited. We heard yesterday she came out with a press release she was coming to Rolling Thunder," Ted Shpak, national legislative director of Rolling Thunder, told "Andrea Mitchell Reports." Shpak is one of three members of Rolling Thunder's current leadership who says he had no idea Palin was coming until it was posted on her website ....

.... Palin's representatives say they were invited to Rolling Thunder—by a former board member who is emceeing the event.

Mike DePaulo tells NBC News he had a standing offer for her to ride with them from the Pentagon across the bridge to D.C.—and that he got a call from what he called "the Palin campaign" on Wednesday to see if they could take him up on it. He coordinated it with a friend of his, Joe Fields, of the Alaska Veterans' Advisory Council, who had worked with Palin when she was governor.
A spokeswoman for Rolling Thunder says they frequently invite celebrity guests to ride with them.

DePaulo says he has a permit for the Palin bus to be parked on Henry Bacon Drive near the Lincoln Memorial. He acknowledges he didnt tell current leaders of the organization that she was coming, since they were already on the road.

When asked if Palin's bus will be participating in the event, Shpak of Rolling Thunder Inc. responded, "Absolutely not."

Shpak says Palin's attendance "is a big distraction" and that his "phone has been ringing off the hook" ever since she announced her intention to attend the event.

(Mitchell and Stephenson)​

Neat and tidy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Repubs are set to sweeps. People are tired of being lied to. it's handed to them/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lied to by whom?

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just a matter of time. Dude, they sit back and do nothing is the best strategy. I cant sit here and be jerked off. You're lying to me don think i wont know?

 

I asked you who was doing the lying.

~String

 

Well how about that, did I call it or what?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rides on the back of a motorcycle before participating in "Rolling Thunder" rally May 29, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia.

Ms. Palin climbed aboard a chopper, assisted by a member of the Rolling Thunder staff, but was unable to move because there were so many members of the press snapping photos. Organizers eventually brought in police, also on motorcycles, to clear a path.

After moving just a few feet, Ms. Palin got off the bike to sign autographs and talk with the crowd.​

 

I wasn't referring to communism, just a more endurable form of capitalism--one with a glass ceiling.
Certainly Pavlov's dog will continue to play the game. When they hit the ceiling, give them a gold plaque on the moon. Atta-boy!

 

"Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss"...eh? I believe the problem is power. A too powerful government will inevitably be corrupt. We need a government just barely powerful enough to perform the vital functions. It's why the US revolution was one of the rare success stories in terms of armed rebellion. Their first attempt at government (articles of confederation) was too weak. They titrated up a bit and achieved an almost perfect balance.

I'm probably part of that group. I believe that all interactions between humans should be voluntary and (ideally) mutually beneficial. The role of government is to ensure that this is the case. To enforce contracts, to jail or punish anyone who attempts to use physical force or extortion to get his way, to defend the borders. etc.;

If you mean you are opposed to people using government as a proxy to force others to do their will, I'm with you 100%.

Again, I agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to use government as a club to attack their enemies or bend others to their will. Of course, my solution to this problem is to keep government too weak for this to even be an option.

• Interesting. I've never heard of ChoicePoint and haven't given this particular issue much thought. I understand your concern, but how would you change the law to prevent it?
  
  Hmm. Everyone loves the idea of family farms. But I don't like the idea of limiting how much property one person can own. I don't see how the government has the right to even do that. Why not simply offer the tax protection you speak of but only for farms below the size you mention ($10 million).
  
  I say the reason for this is that the federal government has grown to be way too powerful. It is now involved in practically every aspect of our lives. Thus, any business needs to consider the impact the federal government might have on it and s they send their lobbyists to Washington.
  
  How could it be otherwise when the federal government has the power to destroy any business with a single regulation or law
  
  I'm no fan of social engineering. I don't deny that it could do good. But I believe it even more likely to do bad.
  First of all, I agree, it is ridiculously expensive to eat healthy. It's also a pain in the ass because junk food lasts forever whereas healthy food goes bad quickly if you don't eat it right away. But I have little faith in the government to fix said problem and suspect the byzantine system of farm subsidies and price supports is probably at least partly responsible for the problem.
  
  As PJ O'Roark said about our entire program of farm subsidies, "We should take it out behind the barn and kill it"
  

I understand and share your concern, but it is tempered by the change in public attitudes towards bankrupsy and even defaulting on a mortgage. I remember a time, not long ago, in which declaring bankrupsy was considered a humiliation. Something people would only do as a last resort and, even then, they'd feel horrible about it.

Lately, people (my sister among them) have taken to running up their credit cards and then declaring bankrupsy with no shame whatsoever. When shame loses its power to deter bad behavior, we must take other measures.

• Again, power corrupts and (to quote Reagan) any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
  
  Don't forget that communist China was "the people's republic", and even the Soviet Union was meant to be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hell, even Hitler claimed to be acting in the name of the true German people, the Volk.
  
  Many if not most governments claim to be exerting the "will of the people"; yet this is inevitably interpreted in such a way as to benefit those in power, their friends, and allies.
  
  I've heard this idea before. What do other nations do? Is the US unique in granting corporations "personhood"?
  
  From reading the article, I think the problem is not a change in government; but a change in ourselves. A loss of self control, a culture that glorifies self indulgent, childish behavior and turns people like Charlie Sheen and Paris Hilton into stars.
  
  I think you over-estimate the effect of laws. We didn't pass the laws until we were ready for them. At one time, there were no anti-child labor laws because children needed to work for the family to survive. Even today, children can work on family farms at any age. And many countries still have children working even today, because they have to. You can pass a law against it, but until the society is wealthy enough, children will keep working.
  
  That may be true, but I don't trust government to act as a "parent" when it is so often simply a tool the powerful use to bludgeon the weak (even sometimes doing so in the name of the weak).

 

I disagree with all of you. I think that money should not exist at all, and everything should be of common ownership.

 

Except that you are mistaken. Clearly there aren't two choices. And, frankly, I think it's blatantly deceptive to say so, or an example of a sever lack of cognitive abilities (and, I don't think either applies to you). To make my point for me. You fully admit that there is a middle ground: You support the existence of a government, just that you support the existence of a government up to a certain point. Ergo, there must be a certain amount of government that is capable of existing without doing harm.

Or, you could just limit the abilities of Congressmen to meet with anybody in private except other government officials, you could assign each elected official a monitor, who's job is to observe his/her actions and report back to an independent monitoring body, you could simply remove personhood from corporations and restrict the ability of any person to--in any way--contribute to a campaign for election, the future wealth of, or current wealth/comfort of any elected official.

You do realize that, despite America's distaste for places like France and Germany, there are things that they do right. Again, taking one or two of the things that other nations do right and applying them pragmatically to ourselves doesn't mean scrapping America and adopting socialized medicine. It's just good common sense to pick from best examples of the world around us and incorporate them into our government.

It's not "interesting" it's fucking tyrannical and it's a step in the direction that Republicans hypocritically claim to hold in such low regard.

Uh, how about make it illegal for the US government to engage in this type of activity. I've heard people claim that "people who exchange freedom for security deserve neither." Well, this is a clear example. And what, exactly, is ChoicePoint doing to protect us? It's idiotic. Less than 5k people were killed in a terrorist act, an order of magnitude MORE die from car accidents and murder. The republic isn't at risk of collapsing from another terrorist attack; we are at risk of losing ourselves to a government that is insanely powerful and monitors our every action.

Why? What sort of craziness is this? Again with the absolutism. It's like you can only see in black and white; as if, to actually protect things of value against rampaging corporate interest--interests that have ZERO concern for you or your family--is somehow a step in the direction of tyranny. Again, France, Britain and Germany do the same. Germany is the Number 1 exporting nation on planet earth. It exports more than the USA, China or Japan (though, not for long, China should pass them sometime this year). Again, protecting valuable American industries against exploitation is precisely what our nation SHOULD do because they contribute cultural and economic value to the nation as as whole.

I'd like to see opponents of things like this come up with one example in a democratic nation of how protecting family farms from corporate takeover led to any form of tyranny. Contrary to conservative claim, Germany, Japan, the UK aren't swinging towards tyranny.

It would, if people actually used their brain and clearly defined a government program, funded it, staffed it with a few competent individuals, stopped their elected officials from worrying about which company got pissed off at them and defined the limits of that program clearly.

I know this and I fully believe that it's possible to get out of your life while keep it in the life of those companies that seek to exert the same influence over your life as the government does. But somehow, corporate control is preferable, as if YOU and I have any influence over them. In fact, it's probably less, considering you--at least--can elect a new official to take car of your gripes, but multi-nationals have zero accountability to you and your family.

Again with the absolutes. Has it not occurred to you that if you simply publicly funded all elections, gave free air time, removed the ability of organizations to meet with congressmen in private, outside of public chambers, you'd have a government that actually did act on the behalf of the public and did achieve relatively middle-ground, pragmatic decisions.

Such as. . . what?

I'm stunned at how you prefer corporate destruction of the health care system, individual health, school lunches, etc. over reasonable government regulation. You literally prefer 20,000 marketing scientists and experts, their limitless power to push anything on you, but you believe that even a reasonably middle-ground government regulation is somehow tyrannical. How, pray tell, is it NOT tyranny what is happening to American people now with banks, fast food, junk food, credit cards and other "in every way tyrannical but in name" industries.

Well, of course not, you've peppered your statement with the word "byzantine" so clearly any possibility of reasonable regulation in this case cannot be achieved. Even before the effort, people on the right will begin attacking such an effort before it's been tried. And, clearly, having been achieved in a legal sense, people on the right will under-fund and over-staff with incompetent individuals so as to bring into reality their pre-ordained claim of reality.

Or. . . there's a middle ground. Clearly you believe in some form of collectivism: You drive on public roads, use publicly funded electrical lines and power generators and many kids (possibly yours) attend public schools without the nation collapsing into a tyranny.

And, again, I'm not talking about taking over any industry or giving every person public health care. I'm talking about placing reasonable control on exploiting industries to which humans have little resistance because those industries spend vast BILLIONS of dollars looking for new ways to exploit humans into what amounts to servitude.

Clearly there is a possibility of giving states and federal regulators the ability to restrict certain activities within parameters, but those possibilities are destroyed by the first few things I mentioned: lobbyists and those on "the fringe" who will package such regulations with so many loopholes and qualifiers as to make effective government utterly impossible.

Which is a snarky one-liner from a really funny guy. . . but just because O'Rourke says it doesn't make it true. This is like people buying into the one liners that people like politicians say and because they sound good, have a nice ring to them, they repeat them over and over as if saying them made it true. "Man UP!" Comes to mind.

Yep and in those times, the regulation of the banking industry (DOH!) prevented banks and credit cards from pushing debt on people who couldn't handle it. Having been freed from those constraints, banks jumped at the opportunity to push-- what amounts to-- debt slavery on millions of Americans by exploiting their fears and basest desires. Sure, there's the point that Americans should exercise better common sense, but there's also the point that the very purpose of the government is to prevent the American people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Great. How about, reintroduce banking regulation into preventing banks from handing credit cards out to people for ten years after a bankruptcy? God forbid the fault of this whole cycle be on those who GAVE your sister the credit to begin with. You're sister's weak. So are most people, contrary to what many believe, everybody has a weakness and to exploit those weaknesses isn't exactly a good thing. Stop banks from pushing credit on people, stop shitty marketers from pushing their crappy food and goods on TV from convincing Americans that they need to spend their way to happiness, and you wouldn't have to worry about altering the bankruptcy laws.

Wait, who said that the government was going to "give you everything". I'm the one who wants the Federal Government to ONLY be able to regulate corporate and large organization activities. Individual citizens would be free to do what they want without--say--a company like ChoicePoint monitoring their activities on behalf of the Federal Government.

Trumpeting out examples of nations that went wrong is a non sequitor. I never said that the government should have any more power on American citizens. Given an opportunity, I can provide you with some well written possible amendments to the constitution that would clearly increase personal liberty, restrict the government and restrict corporate dominance of our lives--

• balanced budget amendment
• a restriction on taxing & spending bills [needing 60% approval by congress; a life span under 4 years; needing to be debated and approved independently of all other legislation and concerning only one tax or appropriation]
• removal of the ability of the federal government to suspend habeas corpus
• limits on the government to dissolve paper money or submit to any currency that isn't 100% American controlled and issued
• federally funded elections w/ a restrictions on commercial advertisement and a requirement to meet and debate in front of constituents along with free air time for such meetings
• limit of corporations, or third parties representing corporations, to petition individual government officials outside of joint, publicly attended committees
• term limits for reps. in the house [not senate]
• a constitutionally mandated oversight body who's job is to monitor all federally elected officials to ensure they are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the law (I'm a big proponent of an independent federal body who's job it is to monitor the activities of our government officials, record their conversations and be near them every moment of their life while in office. This is a big departure, but given an independent body's ability to record every moment of a congressperson's life when outside his/her home and release all that information to the congress, the public or law enforcement, think is a creative and rigorous way to send a message to public officials: when you're on our dime and will always act according to the law.

--All come to mind.

And this, every time, is used as an example. But, there are just as many examples where the government does effectively act on behalf of the people, especially when that power is checked, monitored closely to ensure that they are always acting on the people's behalf. In fact, I think our elected officials should be made to run scared of us, the citizens. I think they should be watched, recorded and observed by someone at all times while in office and subject to draconian punishments for even the smallest crimes.

In nations where there isn't a written constitution (the UK) and other nations with them, but where the power is given to the national government (Canada, Australia, France), there are restrictions on corporate personhood without any lack of a right to practice capitalism and be creative.

Except that people change and there's no going back, Mad. So wishing for the impossible would be like wishing for GM to begin producing the 57 Chevy again because it's so goddamned popular with Chevrolet fans!

The government should be changed to accommodate who we are now and the reality of who corporations are now. This is the problem with intellectual (not ideological) conservatism. A lot of conservatives ramble on and one about changing ourselves and going back to better times, but that will never happen. It's never happened. It cannot ever happen (and I'd implore you to show me a nation/people that ever "went back" to a certain way). What has to happen is that we continuously mold a government that meets the needs of our current reality. A government that, itself, rises to the challenges presented by corporations that are reaching the power of the corporations that Teddy Roosevelt fought and defeated.

Mad, where did I say the government should act as parent or prevent children from working on family farms?

Clearly you believe that the government should have the ability to act on your behalf and prevent big corporations from dumping waste into rivers near you or causing the death of your kid because it dumped bacteria in canned foods or to remove a child from an abusive home.

Yeah and I clearly address ways that a reasonable government could restrict the power of the powerful and have limited ability to act on the public's behalf. I've stated like ten times that the job of the government should be "hands-off" when it comes to families and individual citizens but a little more hands-on when dealing with corporations who are doing to you NOW what you claim to hate about powerful governments. And I'm not asking to replace those hands with government hands. What I'm pointing out is that ALL hands--corporate and governmental--should be taken off of individual families.

Since you have next-to-no power to prevent corporate hands from manipulating you and because YOUR government is an extension of YOU and THE PEOPLE, clearly it should act on your behalf to keep un-elected difficult-to-influence corporate powers from monitoring you and influencing you (and your kids) in a way that is pernicious.

As I've said, ALL hands should be off American citizens and families: Corporate and Federal.

~String

 

Well then, yay for you. Good luck getting humans to live like a colony of Carpenter ants.

 

on the news this morning, i actually heard her say that she loved the smell of CO2 emissions. wow, now that's a true republican!

 

You claim to be familiar with the original governing principles of the United States, as expressed by the Founders and exemplified in contemporary law or custom. So you must have heard that idea before - the early corporations formed in the US were very sharply limited in their scope of action even, and had almost nothing resembling "rights". That kind of nonsense came much later.

Your cause and effect is reversed: allowing child labor allows the creation of economic setups that enforce its necessity. The economy gets stuck in a lowlevel equilibrium.

No comment.
Another example:

The inability to even recognize the difference between property "one person can own" and property one corporation can own is really striking, among the authoritarian right and general teaparty wings. It's as if all this yak about "rights" and "freedoms" were about corporate rights and corporate freedoms, in the first place - as if people didn't even exist as a separate category of being.

Palin makes a good representative of this faction, methinks - as so many people interviewed about her (and Michelle Bachmann, and before them W, and on back through the incompetent swamp) say, she's a regular person just like them. They'd like to have a beer with her.

That's a third of the likely voters, right there. That makes her a serious candidate, if she plays it right - a power broker, at the minimum, who will need buying off.

btw: Banning corporate ownership of farmland is easily possible, without dramatic effects otherwise. Forty years ago in Minnesota, for example: http://www.newrules.org/agriculture...p-limitations/corporate-farming-law-minnesota

 

Corporate Personhood: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

~String

 

This and That

I found an old post I wrote for a thread on corporate personhood a few years ago. It's mostly an excerpt of Ted Nace's Gangs of America, which volume I highly recommend to anyone who hasn't gotten around to it.

• • •​

One can almost strike a direct analogy: What if I said guns are a problem? Not in this specific context, of course, but what I'm after is that there would be plenty to remind me that a gun is a gun is a gun, and the difference is whose hands it is in.

We can say the same thing, in many ways, about societal dominion, i.e., "power". While it is a heroic and therefore gratifying belief to assert that one accomplishes solely according to their individual merit, it is also simply not true. In my lifetime, no capitalist has achieved squat without enjoying the benefits of socialism, whether it is the hiring of educated managers who went to public schools, or transporting goods over public roads, or even drawing power from a municipal grid.

The human endeavor is social; we are stronger together than we are individually. As such, much of what we do needs to be viewed in the context of a cooperative endeavor. In that context, some degree of collective governance is required to maintain society and its progress.

Here, though, is where the whole thing gets incredibly sticky. Think not so much in terms of politics and constitution as in fundamental components of social cohesion. Sometimes we call these aspects or ideas "values", or "virtues", though such terms can become tiring after a while.

Think for a moment of "original sin".

Running through an historical heritage that we can track over the course of millennia, that we can measure in terms of idealistic themes and the variations thereupon, is original sin. Yes, I do mean Adam and Eve and the Snake and all that mess once upon a time. (Our atheistic neighbors should note that for our practical purposes, it doesn't actually matter whether or not the story is true, as long as people have believed it long enough.)

One of the most corrosive products of original sin, one that people so rarely meet directly, is fear. We are all, as the theology suggests, born into sin. We are all, as the theology suggests, inherently corrupt.

When we look at people, we tend to assess the ways in which they threaten us. This is, to some degree, quite natural. To the other, though, there comes a point when our fear of corruption about others is an ego defense—or neurotic—complex.

If one believes that a sufficient concentration of societal dominion will inevitably corrupt, then one necessarily asserts that the human condition is incapable of genuine altruism. Fundamental to such distrust of government is the idea that human beings are incapable of governing themselves properly.

One of the more apparent results of original sin is that human beings require divine intervention in order to be appropriately good.

I find this a close enough analogy to beg the question: Whence comes the libertarian presupposition that humanity is incapable of governing itself properly?

You live in a region where I'm sure you can find at least one or two gnarled and weathered high school coaches who will still gruffly recite a mantra that may well have been bequeathed unto us by Knute Rockne himself: "If you think you can or can't, you're probably right." I don't know, I can't find the origin of that one, except that every football coach I know out here—and that's more than even I would think—knows the saying. I've heard it all my life. I'm looking at a Google entry that encourages the Athens Bulldogs Track & Field team, and just checking in to make certain, that's Athens, Ohio.

My point being that there is something to it. We see it in race and ethnicity questions when people argue over whether or not one can pull themselves up strictly by moxy and bootstrap. We see it in sports at all levels of competition. Business leaders extoll such virtues at civic club luncheons across the nation.

Juxtaposition:

• Power inevitably corrupts.
• If you think you can or can't, you're probably right.​

I'm just saying, it's even a punch line. As String noted:

"Even before the effort, people on the right will begin attacking such an effort before it's been tried. And, clearly, having been achieved in a legal sense, people on the right will under-fund and over-staff with incompetent individuals so as to bring into reality their pre-ordained claim of reality."​

I'm not sure if he was aware of it, but that's an old joke about what's wrong with government:

A Democrat will tell you he can make you richer, smarter, and more handsome, and he'll even get the chickweed out of your lawn. A Republican will tell you what's wrong with government, and then he'll get elected and prove it.​

And perhaps there is a reason.

Not only have conservatives largely presumed people incapable of properly governing themselves, they've also made an identity complex out of it to such a point that they need this fundamental human corruption to be true.

To a certain degree, governance—authority—is simply a necessity. But few, indeed, and nearly mythical are those heroic avatars like Commander Adama, or, well, Captain Avatar. The question seems to be whether one believes such goodness can only exist in myth, be it BSG or the Bible.

If we are so fundamentally corrupt that we can never govern ourselves properly, then why bother? That's what I don't get. We came together in social units for a reason. We have evolved in that context for a reason. No, we're not perfect, but we're clearly quite capable of learning and figuring things out as we go. Certainly, it has its costs, but I assure you we've been around a lot longer than six thousand years, and we have the potential to be around forever.

Thus, if we are potentially capable of properly governing ourselves, and simply haven't figured it out yet, perhaps that outcome is an assessment of our social accomplishment. That is, we constantly measure "quality of life", but how, exactly, do we measure the quality of the people a nation produces? That is a much tougher assessment, and not to be undertaken lightly. Humanity has fought wars of extermination over such questions before.

So perhaps we can only apply that assessment to ourselves as an individual culture: What sort of Americans are we creating?

And if we cannot raise leaders who are capable of fulfilling the state's role in the public trust, who have we to blame but ourselves?

Yes, power corrupts, and humans are imperfect, but that's no reason to not try. And limiting the public trust in order to maximize the returns to private interest is no reasonable trade. As long as our fundamental need is to cut one another's throats, and our fundamental expectation that our neighbor will do so, we will always suffer the ravages of desperation, and the corruption of greed.

Consider that so many of the people who would assert that the United States is a fundamentally Christian nation would also reject Apostolic cooperation (Acts 4.32-37). What I'm after here is a problematic juxtaposition that we never seem to reconcile: The desire, to the one, for trust and good faith; the fear, to the other, that moves us to withhold these things. The idyllic America we put forward as our merit is one that requires trust and good faith. The wealthy and powerful America that virtually runs the world is built in fear.

If we surrender to our expectation of inherent corruption, we will always be corrupt.

 

The Legend of Sarah

The Legend of Sarah

A friend once corrected me on the detail of a particular episode in his life, but then grinned and said, "I like your version better. If you ever have the choice between the real story and legend ...."

Michael D. Shear reported for The New York Times on Sunday:

Sarah Palin made a grand entrance at the Rolling Thunder biker rally on Sunday, wearing a black Harley-Davidson helmet and visibly enjoying herself as a crush of reporters and bikers swarmed her motorcycle.

Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, was joined by her husband, Todd, who was wearing a matching helmet, and her daughters, Bristol and Piper. Their arrival at the Pentagon North parking lot turned the lazy Sunday morning into a celebrity affair.

Ms. Palin climbed aboard a chopper, assisted by a member of the Rolling Thunder staff, but was unable to move because there were so many members of the press snapping photos. Organizers eventually brought in police, also on motorcycles, to clear a path.

After moving just a few feet, Ms. Palin got off the bike to sign autographs and talk with the crowd. At one point she could be heard discussing "the missing," a reference to the soldiers still missing in action — a key part of the Rolling Thunder cause.

(Boldface accent added)​

And this is how legends are made. Mark Felsenthal, today, for Reuters:

It all started on Sunday when Palin entered Washington on the back of a Harley-Davidson in the Rolling Thunder motorcycle parade that has become part of the Memorial Day weekend observance in the capital.​

The transformation only took a day. Then again, the Palin tour is shaping up to be an incredible exercise in egotism:

Palin was a no-show for supporters, celebrity-watchers and media waiting hours for her at the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg on Monday, but her tour bus reportedly was spotted at a nearby hotel, making it likely she would appear in public Tuesday.

Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, is on a tour of historic sites on the East Coast -- fueling speculation she might be testing the waters for a run at the presidency in 2012.

But the former Alaska governor isn't advising the media of her itinerary, leaving supporters as well as reporters guessing where she will appear next ....

.... On Monday rumors, then Twitter messages, then posts on her website showed Palin had visited sites around Washington -- the National Archives, where the U.S. Constitution is under glass, first President George Washington's mansion at Mount Vernon, and Baltimore's Fort McHenry, where the rockets' red glare of battle described in the U.S. national anthem took place.

A photo on her website late on Sunday showed the closing words of the Gettysburg Address, the famous speech President Abraham Lincoln delivered after the 1863 battle, which was taken as a hint about her next destination.

Several hundred people gathered on a hot, sunny day for a glimpse of the woman who supporters are hoping will inject some life into a slow-moving race for the Republican nomination to take on President Barack Obama next year.

Some of those gathered at Gettysburg were puzzled by the goal of her tour, which seemed designed to attract public attention despite a lack of information.

"In a way it's cool. In a way it's, 'Whaa?'" said John Hower, a baker who drove for three hours from Berwick, Pennsylvania, with two friends to see Palin. "She's trying to avoid the media. But I'd like to see the bus. We're, like, where's this bus?"

(ibid)​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Chase Me! Supporters and media alike scurry to and fro, trying to find Sarah.
(Photo: Reuters/Molly Riley)​

An old Van Halen video comes to mind: "Sit down, Waldo!"

Don't ask.

Robin Abcarian helps the Los Angeles Times do its part to encourage the sideshow:

It's still unclear whether Sarah Palin's road trip is an educational family tour of historical America or a dry run for her potential Republican presidential bid.

But Monday, two things became clear: She will not shy away from unscripted encounters, and she isn't going let anyone know in advance where she's going as she wends her way across the country this summer.

In an impromptu news conference Monday evening in the parking lot of her Gettysburg hotel shortly after taking a four-mile run in steaming heat, Palin said she thought the current crop of Republican presidential contenders is "strong" and that any campaign she might wage "would definitely be unconventional and nontraditional, yes, knowing us, yeah, it would have to be."

And that was as far as she would go, leaving the former Alaska governor's intentions, like much of her bus tour, a mystery. Although she announced her "One Nation" tour with great fanfare on her website, Palin has refused to post information about her schedule, leaving reporters scrambling across the Eastern Seaboard to figure out her stops.

Her bus tour began for real on Monday after she spent Sunday, the ostensible start day, riding in a motorcycle procession for veterans and surreptitiously visiting Washington monuments ....​

Ah, the Legend of Sarah.

"I wish every student in America could get here," Palin told reporters as she exited the National Archives following a private tour for her husband, parents, children—minus Trig—and exclusively contracted reporter Greta van Susteren. Afterward, the group traveled to Mount Vernon and then Fort McHenry, and then Gettysburg. The latest rumors suggest the tour is ehaded to Philadelphia next. And while Sarah Palin insists that she is not riding a campaign bus, she did take a moment at Fort McHenry to rebuke President Obama for not beating his chest at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday:

She didn't answer a question about her position on U.S. policy in Afghanistan, instead slightly remonstrating President Obama for his remark Monday at Arlington National Cemetery that it is his "most solemn responsibility as president to serve as commander in chief of one of the finest fighting forces the world has ever known."

Said Palin: "It's not just one of the greatest fighting forces. And I sure hope our president recognizes that. We're not just one of many. We are the best."

(ibid)​

This is how legends are made. At least, made in America.
____________________

Notes:

Shear, Michael D. "For Palin, a Short Ride With Lots of Rumbling". The Caucus. May 29, 2011. TheCaucus.Blogs.NYTimes.com. May 30, 2011. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/for-palin-a-short-ride-with-lots-of-rumbling/

Felsenthal, Mark. "Palin a no-show for fans wanting Gettysburg view". Reuters. May 30, 2011. Reuters.com. May 30, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-usa-campaign-palin-idUSTRE74S1S920110531

Abcarian, Robin. "Sarah Palin's bus tour stops at National Archives, Mount Vernon and Baltimore". Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2011. LATimes.com. May 30, 2011. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-palin-bus-tour-20110531,0,3373379.story

 

A Whiff of Scandal

A Whiff of Scandal

Sarah Palin may have accidentally attempted to upstage Mitt Romney's presidential campaign kickoff in New Hampshire today, but there might be a scandal about to upstage the former Alaska governor. Ted Van Dyk reported on a Palin appearance in Prescott, Arizona last weekend:

A large band of California-based motorcyclists, wearing American-flag and other patriotic gear, was spending Friday night in the town's historic Courthouse Square on their way to Washington, D.C. for July 4 celebrations.

Prescott's Courthouse Square is the place where Arizona national and sometimes statewide politicians declare their official candidacies. Both Sens. John McCain and Barry Goldwater launched their presidential runs there. It is the site of the state's first territorial capital and, coincidentally, was the site of the Goldwater family's department store ....

.... Courthouse Square was swarming with partying locals, the motorcyclists, and tourists Friday. Sighted in the crowd was immigration tough guy Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpayo, up from Phoenix. Then lights and TV trucks materialized. There was Sarah Palin, wearing western gear, including an expensive cowboy hat. She recently bought a new place in North Scottsdale. She proceeded up a stairway to one of the town's famous saloons and began pumping hands.

The comments from people who were there mainly were around the themes that "she is beautiful" and "she is really nice." A friend of ours, the insurgent/reform candidate for mayor, running against the good-ole-boy GOP incumbent, approached Palin and asked that she sign her mayoral petititon.

Palin did so (even though, as a non-resident, her signature would of course be disqualified). Palin also offered to campaign for our friend and help her raise money — no doubt not knowing that she was a political and cultural liberal running on a throw-the-rascals-out platform. TV and other cameras documented Palin's signing of the petition and the big hug she gave our candidate friend.

(Boldface accent added)​

Seattle blogger Darryl Holman raises what could be an interesting question, or could end up as a fizzle:

Sure…as a non-resident, her signature would have to be disqualified, but wasn’t this an act of election fraud?!?

Here it is ... under title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes:

16-1020. Signing of petitions; violation; classification

A person knowingly signing any name other than his own to a nomination petition or a petition for formation, alteration or dissolution of a special district [...] or who is not at the time of signing a qualified elector entitled to vote at the election initiated by the petition, is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.​

For years Republicans have engaged in fetishistic hand-wringing over voter fraud, even as numerous investigations find little evidence of actual voter fraud. Its a good issue for Republicans, because under the guise of “election integrity” they can systematically disenfranchise, en masse, voters who tend to vote Democratic. And, man, have they been disenfranchising voters. (Apparently, blocking people entitled to vote from exercising their right isn’t an equally important integrity issue.)

So I hope Republican voters will stay true to their fetish strategy convictions and express shock and outrage over Sarah Palin’s demonstrably blatant act of election fraud. If so, one might expect enraged calls for her prosecution, if not angry mobs chanting something about a hanging.​

Yet there are, of course, questions to be answered; Holman's argument is not necessarily definitive. David Goldstein, writing for Slog, considers:

I suppose, perhaps, Palin is a "qualified elector," in that she has quietly switched her residence and voter registration to Arizona, which would be awfully big news. Though I'd wager Palin is not a "qualified elector," and thus committed election fraud, which should be even bigger news. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that.​

The question, then, would be whether or not Sarah Palin has legally registered to vote in Arizona. Conservative news site The State Column reported today that Sarah Palin confirmed the purchase of a home in the Scottsdale area:

“You know, many, many Alaskans purchase property in Arizona, Nevada and Texas,” Mr. Palin said from her bus that has been touring the East Coast. “I think we do that because not only are we good investors, and it’s a buyer’s market, but we like to thaw out once in a while.”​

It's not a scoop. But the suggestion that the Scottsdale home is an investment or, possibly, vacation property might find support in Palin's remarks on Wednesday. ABC News reported yesterday:

The former Alaska governor confirmed the reports that she’s bought a house in Arizona but said she has not officially moved there.

“No I haven’t moved from Alaska but Safari Investments has invested in property in Arizona,” she said, adding that “we are a part of” Safari Investments. The reason for the purchase? As Alaskans, she and the rest of the Palin gang “like to thaw out once in a while.”​

Has Palin registered to vote in Arizona, but not moved there? I suppose it is possible. According to the Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., a conservative political advocacy group:

Q: Who can register to vote?
A: Any U.S. citizen and Arizona resident who will be 18 by the election date can register. For the 2012 election year, you may register to vote at 17 as long as you will be 18 years old on or before August 28 to vote in the Primary Election and on or before November 6 to vote in the General Election ....​

According to the Arizona online voter registration page, one must register to vote twenty-nine days before an election in order to establish valid registration for that election. Presently, the site looks forward to the August 30, 2011 election.

Sarah Palin has plenty of time to register in Arizona ahead of that election, if she chooses. But she has stated publicly that she has not moved to Arizona, and Center for Arizona Policy explains:

Q: How long does it take for my Voter Registration to be approved?
A: The County Elections Office will send your Voter Regsitration card in 4‐6 weeks after receiving the form. If you do not hear from them by then, contact them directly. If you are using the online form, print the online confirmation for your records. If you are completing a paper form, either keep the carbon copy or make a copy for your records.​

Four to six weeks. Again, there is nothing definitive in that, but what are the chances that Sarah Palin might have registered to vote in Arizona, say, a month ago? And what are the chances that we might have heard something about that in the meantime?

It's a big if that Goldstein raises. And intuitively, one might think, yes, it would be big news.

Still, though, the question of Sarah Palin's legal status as an Arizona voter is not the only important aspect to consider. There is also the question of whether or not the story will have any legs. And, of course, there is further the matter if, beyond making the futile demand that conservatives honor their own rhetoric, the idea that Palin signed a mayoral candidacy petition in Prescott, Arizona really matters at all.

I mean, come on. Yes, there is the appearance of a valid question here. But, really, just how big a deal is it? And what are the chances that the Tom Horne, the Republican Attorney General of Arizona, would really pursue Sarah Palin on a misdemeanor charge. And it would be a pain in the ass, looking through Title 16 of the Arizona revised statutes.

So how big a deal is this, really?

To the other, if the story gets legs and actually becomes important, I would feel really stupid for having passed it over. Perhaps a mere whiff of scandal, but it is strange to pay this much attention to Sarah Palin, and her gravity is such that everything seems to warp around her.

Call it political theatre on my part, then. Or just call it a hedging of bets.
____________________

Notes:

Van Dyk, Ted. "Sarah Palin, trying on Arizona". Crosscut. May 31, 2011. Crosscut.com. June 2, 2011. http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/20343/Sarah-Palin,-trying-on-Arizona/

Holman, Darryl. "Sarah Palin uses Memorial Day celebration to commit election fraud". Horse's Ass. May 30, 2011. HorsesAss.org. June 2, 2011. http://horsesass.org/?p=34876

Goldstein, David. "Did Sarah Palin Just Commit Election Fraud in Arizona?". Slog. June 1, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. June 2, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...h-palin-just-commit-election-fraud-in-arizona

Staff. "Sarah Palin confirms house purchase in Arizona". The State Column. June 2, 2011. TheStateColumn.com. June 2, 2011. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/sarah-palin-confirms-house-purchase-in-arizona/

Marikar, Sheila. "Sarah Palin Defends Bus Tour, Says She Hasn't Moved to Arizona". The Note. June 1, 2011. Blogs.ABCNews.com. June 2, 2011. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...bus-tour-says-she-hasnt-moved-to-arizona.html

Center for Arizona Policy. "Voter Registration FAQs". (n.d.) AZVoterGuide.com. June 2, 2011. http://www.azvoterguide.com/?page_id=199

Arizona Motor Vehicle Department. "EZ Voter Registration". (n.d.) ServiceArizona.com. June 2, 2011. https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/

Arizona State Legislature. Arizona Revised Statutes. (n.d.) AZLeg.gov. June 2, 2011. http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

 

I think you're reaching here. I seriously doubt she's going to run, anyway. Her little bus tour is like Trump's candidacy, just a vanity tour meant to drum up interest in the various money making activities she spends her time on these days.

 

If She's Puttin' On A Show, We Might As Well Enjoy It

I generally agree, except that a certain sector among political conservatives—of which Sarah Palin is a part—actually still has the power to surprise me. Honestly, there's no other way to say it except that if I really think I'm seeing politicians scrape bottom, I can always, always count on the GOP to prove me wrong.

She knows enough to quit public service for money. She ought to be smart enough to not run. But, at the same time, it's Sarah Palin. No matter how stupid I accept her to be, she can still find a way to convince me I've underestimated her stupidity yet again.

Meanwhile, Paul Constant last week considered the field of GOP candidates and maybe-rans, including the Wasilla juggernaut:

SARAH PALIN
Where did this lady come from?

Hell. The darkest pits of hell, where automobiles run on a mixture of tar and crystal meth, where babies give birth to their own cousins, and where literacy will get you fed to the wolves—and then the wolves will be shot from helicopters and harvested for two meager drops of oil extracted from their anal glands.

What's her problem?

She's a used-up attention whore who's running out of attention.

Is she serious?

About running for president? No. About believing that it is every American's duty to lovingly attend to every bit of excrement that slithers out from between her two glossy lips? Yes. She might have to make a cursory run for president in order to keep her brand relevant, but she's happier where she is right now, as a well-paid shill for idiocy who is blessedly free from having to face the consequences of her actions.

(Italic accent added)​

Like Newt Gingrich, a primary run is always a consideration simply because it keeps the speaking fees higher. So we might actually see a melding of run and not run. I mean, come on, with the crowd she fleeces, it's almost a viable stunt: Declare candidacy, fail miserably for her own stupidity. Blame the liberal media for hating her womanhood, increase her legend among the followers.

Yes, I know, it sounds incredibly cynical. But as soon as I say it's not possible, she'll go and do it.

Meanwhile, Constant figures this postcard might be referring to the above-quoted article:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, a postcard. Most Slog critics who write in do it in the comments to save postage.
(Oh, that, and it's faster.)​

____________________

Notes:

Constant, Paul. "Are They Serious?" The Stranger. May 24, 2011. TheStranger.com. June 3, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/are-they-serious/Content?oid=8309380

—————. "The Best Piece of Mail I Got This Week". Slog. June 2, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. June 3, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/02/the-best-piece-of-mail-i-got-this-week

 

You are right on the money. She is Sarah Palin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have to agree with Carl Rove. In my view Carl Rove is disgusting immoral pig and largely responsible for our current and recent disasters. However the man does know his Republican politics.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/05/rove-thinks-palin-will-run.html