They left tried to refudiate it…
…but Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” wins the title “word of the year” from the New Oxford American Dictionary.
And to top it all off, her new reality show about Alaska gets TLC’s highest ever ratings for a program’s premiere.
[NOTE: This lady is probably not all that pleased. In a piece that came out today in the Boston Herald before the other news stories appeared, she says the show is downright embarrassing, and ridicules Palin’s use of the word “refudiate.” It’s probably easier for her to discount the TLC audience’s choice, though, than to ridicule the decision of the dictionary doyens.]
Palin’s show is (inadvertently) hilarious, but despite her best attempts to make her behavior as good as possible, the very fact that she is starring in her own reality show after complaining about too much interference in her life makes her seem utterly ridiculous.
In 1960 JFK got a lot of mileage from the book he allegedly wrote, Profiles in Courage. It may have been ghostwritten, but it started a trend where Presidential candidates are supposed to be published authors in order to be taken seriously.
Barack Obama wrote not one but two autobiographies before he ever really accomplished anything.
Sarah already has two books under her belt (the second is due to be released in the next week or so). She’s also been using Facebook and Twitter to great advantage. We live in a media-driven age, so maybe a TV show is the next logical step.
By watching a grand total of about 2 hours of TV a year I have concluded I am not missing much, and Alaska didn’t change my mind any. One thing 30 minutes of this program did for me was make me wonder what people see in Palin. I had a higher opinion of her based on what I read in blogs. I wonder why she did this program. It did not help her any. F
I rarely watch TV nowadays. I had heard about the show but had forgotten when it was supposed to be on. Last night I was surfing the web and clicked on Zombie’s site, which had a new post up:
(WARNING! NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR ANYWHERE ELSE!)
Anyhoo, Zombie’s post reminded me about Sarah’s show, so after viewing Zombie’s site (I’ve seen most of those photos before), I turned on the TV and watched it. It was a delightful palate cleanser.
Sarah is like the canary in the coal mine. Except her job is to lure the reflexive bigots out in the daylight. And does it in a way that reveals party affiliation to be sorely lacking in clearly defining the two Americas.
All who sneered at her and repeated the word as a way to mock her managed to ensure that this became word of the year. Love it!
I have mixed feelings about the TLC show and Bristol on DWTS because of tabloidy nature of these shows. And yet – Palin is demonstrating to other Republicans/conservatives that you have to engage in popular culture, not shun it. By doing these shows a much wider range of people are exposed to the Palins, without an intermediary, and she’s changing some minds (for example, see the comments a TV without Pity).
It’s nice to see a Republican earn “strange new respect” without having to trash fellow Republicans to do it. It may not get here elected, but it’s certainly humanized Republicans in a way not seen before.
I have been fortunate to be able to visit Alaska on quite a few occasions. One of my high school classmates is a well known (but now retired) veterinarian in the Anchorage area. The show was for me a kind of tip toe back through my experiences in the great outdoors of Alaska. I’ve flown all around Denali (McKinley), fished for salmon and trout in the rivers and lakes, and been privileged to watch the Brown bears up close as they feed on the salmon run. It is an incomparable state and well worth watching the program just for the scenery and wildlife.
I thought Palin may have made a mistake doing the ice and rock climbing because it gave a picture of her as less assured, less competent than she looks when in the political arena. I wonder how many other politicians would allow themselves to be shown outside of their bubble of competency. (Imagine Lisa Murkowski or Nancy Pelosi putting themselves in such a position of the tyro having to struggle to do an easy climb.) It seems to show that Palin really isn’t worried about what people think of her. Does that show that she has no intention of running for office again? I don’t know.
I will be watching the other installments. First of all because Alaska is very much worth visiting, either on TV or in person. Secondly, because I find the Palin family interesting even if she never runs for office again.
I had the opposite thought when watching that. I thought it showed her dogged perseverance, pushing ahead in spite of her uncertainty and fears.
I also thought it was very calculated to show exactly that.
Yeah, right, Bryan. Almost as hilarious as NoBama pretending to be President and Moochelle pretending to garden. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi pretending to be a human and Harry Reid pretending to be sane. And let’s not forget John “I was in Vietnam” Kerry pretending to be wounded three times and in Cambodia on orders of President Nixon prior to the time Nixon was President. I won’t even go into the pretended natural born citizen status of NoBama. You libs are a joke-a-minute, ain’t ya? Practice saying, “President Palin” now. It will save you lots on bills for counseling and psychotropic meds later on.
“Refudiate” is right up there with “misunderestimate” as wonderful neologisms. And it gives the snarkies, those lapdogs, a bonelet to gnaw on.
Do any of you remember when Ike said “Urinations” instead of “European nations”?
Often, these little mis-speaks are so on the mark.
rickl said, “I had the opposite thought when watching that. I thought it showed her dogged perseverance, pushing ahead in spite of her uncertainty and fears.
I also thought it was very calculated to show exactly that.”
Good point. You could be correct. My judgment about how others see such things may be faulty. It’s just that so many people seem to want to see “gravitas” in people vying for public leadership.
The climb put her in a position of being gutsy, but not showing the competence and cool control that people seem to expect or read as “gravitas.” Well, we’ll see how it plays out.
I love Alaska! I just bought a retirement place up there this past Summer, in fact…from a guy who lives in “Sarah Palin’s” Wasilla. 😉
Say what you want about Palin, she’s making all the nose-chiropractors rich!
“It’s just that so many people seem to want to see “gravitas” in people vying for public leadership.”
I don’t know about that, JJ. On another blog (Tigerhawk) I had an exchange with someone who objected to Palin’s lack of “gravitas and wisdom” and I pointed out that gravitas and wisdom aren’t playing well these days because the gravitas/wisdom boys have been really screwing up the economy for the last 3-4 years.
Palin instinctively seems to know that people have caught on to the contrived and phony smooth operator meme shoved down our throats by the MSM. I bet the woman even ocassionally picks her nose and yells at her kids. Ohhh Noooo!
For the ridiculousness of running everything in minutia by a focus group, see exhibit A: Vladimir Putin. Where he would have seemingly scaled that mountain like James Bond without a shirt and brought back an injured fellow climber on his back.
Maybe in the past, or people want gravitas in theory, but reality is a whole ‘nother matter. What gravitas did Obama have, besides lugging around a teleprompter? Two autobiographies from a man with no accomplishments? Faux columns in Denver? He’d stop the oceans from rising and heal our planet?
I’ve said it before that Lincoln could not be elected today as he was far from telegenic, though quite smart. Heck, even bald guys have little shot at winning the presidency these days, the last being Eisenhower (but he was a stud who led the Allies to victory in WWII). We are no longer in the ‘experience matters for president’ era, but in the ‘American Idol for president’ era.
As much I’d like to see Palin run in 2012, I am beginning to think she’s enjoying her power away from the throne, being a kingmaker, so to speak. But if the Republicans have a bunch of weak sisters running in 2012, I expect to see her throw her lipstick into the ring.
Reminds me a little of, ebonics….
“From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have concluded that neither ‘refute’ nor ‘repudiate’ seems consistently precise, and that ‘refudiate’ more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ‘reject.’
Then why not use all three existing words rather than accept a bastard conglomeration.
The word sounds ugly and it is unnecessary.
Alaskan ebonics….
I thought “refudiate” started out as a typo and Sarah thought it worked better than what she’d meant to write in the first place. I’m a sucker for unfeigned and unself-conscious whimsy, and for hot mama grizzlies, too.
Ya know, I like it.
I think I’m gonna start slipping “refudiate” into as many conversations as possible.
“Misunderestimate” too!
Will it piss off my more liberal co-workers?
You betcha!
😀
Refudiate, misunderestimate; quaint bits of inconsequential “misspeaking”, unless representing some more insidious family trait, the consequences of which may have staggering implications for the wepublic:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101013/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_and_palin
Don Janousek: Ouch. All I have to do is not like Sarah Palin and suddenly I’m branded as a liberal? I don’t like her because she quit halfway through her governorship–which, according to my Alaskan friends, she wasn’t doing too bad in–in order to become a full-time media hog. Would I need meds if she became president? Probably not. I like some things about her–her absolute and unwavering support for Israel is a pleasant contrast to Obama’s treatment of our natural ally in the Middle East like a abusive father treats his children–I would just prefer other candidates. So sue me.
It’s interesting that the Palin show is so widely referred to as a “reality show,” which I’m certain is a deliberate choice of words among media types who despise her. The expression “reality show” conjures up images of wife swapping, sister wives, tacky beach houses in New Jersey, etc.
It’s called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” and it seems more like a documentary-style program with Palin and her cute family as the hosts. I may or may not ever vote for her, but life in Alaska is interesting to a lot of people who live in very different surroundings in the lower 48. And her family is adorable, especially Trig and her new grandson.
Seems to me that this is another genius move on the part of Palin. She gets to showcase her spectacularly beautiful state, look gutsy and good-humored whilst hiking up icy slopes, and throw in the occasional zinger against the White House and her multitudes of haters on the left. She’s one-upping them again with this show, and they know it.
The whole phenomenon is really fascinating to watch. It’s another variation of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Palin is an attractive conservative woman with a large family (including a child with Down’s) who was not only elected governor but also has extraordinary political gifts. She is a threat to the prevailing worldview on the left on multiple levels, so she must be personally destroyed.
The interesting thing is, the more they try to bring her down (let’s make fun of her “reality” show), the stronger, more popular and influential she becomes. I love the fact that she is busting TLC ratings with this show.
I’m neither fan nor foe of Palin, but she seems to have foiled her critics again.
What is Palin not: an intellectual. an elite. a snob. a know it all. arrogant. humorless. one-dimensional. cowardly. dysfunctional. vengeful. a liar. a hater.
And a vote is still a vote. It doesn’t care if it belongs to a Harvard economist or someone who watched Roseanne. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar, there are a whole lot more Roseanne watchers.
Palin’s show is (inadvertently) hilarious, but despite her best attempts to make her behavior as good as possible, the very fact that she is starring in her own reality show after complaining about too much interference in her life makes her seem utterly ridiculous.
I don’t remember Palin complaining about “too much interference.” What I remember and see currently is unfair treatment from the MSM. And an animosity towards her that seems very much akin to BDS.
“Ridiculous” Palin may be, at least in the opinion of the commentor, but I’ve viewed the debut episode and found it pleasant, not ridiculous.
One thing 30 minutes of this program did for me was make me wonder what people see in Palin. I had a higher opinion of her based on what I read in blogs. I wonder why she did this program. It did not help her any.
What “people see in Palin”? Speaking for myself I see intelligence, common sense(the two are not the same), a love of country, unabashed patriotism, a self-deprecating sense of humor(the best kind) and a love of her state. I believe the program will do no harm to Palin at all. Those who already dislike her will find reasons to dislike the show. Those who don’t will probably enjoy what is in essence a travelogue for Alaska and a peek at her home life.
Then why not use all three existing words rather than accept a bastard conglomeration.
The short answer is because language is determined by usage. Language is evolutionary and never static.
I don’t like her because she quit halfway through her governorship … in order to become a full-time media hog.
Actually, no. Palin has said that she decided to step down because she was spending too much time fighting frivolous legal harassment, harassment made possible because of her office. As for “media hog,” a hog can’t help it that bacon is tasty.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-16-airportpatdowns16_ST_N.htm
Totally unrelated, but not everybody reads USA Today. I’d love to be able to walk into Napolitano’s office, and fire her ass.
Re: BDS and its off-shoot PNS (Palin Derangement Syndrome).
What we seem to have here is a situation in which the rich white guy (Bush) and the conservative mother-of-five (Palin) are the “authentic” characters who have human shortcomings but who mean what they say and say what they mean (while not being “mean” about it).
On the other hand, the Harvard-educated African American guy (Obama) with the all-important multicultural life experiences has revealed himself to be an arrogant fake who frequently says the opposite of what he means (or doesn’t mean what he says). Not to mention a complete screwup in terms of governing.
It’s not supposed to work out this way. The narrative has gone haywire!
I’m surprised I haven’t heard people suggest Sarah Palin replace Michael Steele. She already has more influence than him and chairing the RNC would allow her to do what she does best, get people fired up and support the candidates that should win and can win. And unlike Steele she doesn’t appear to be embarrassed to be a Republican.
As far as whether or not she’d make a good President, well, she’s not very experienced in executive matters, she’s not a great orator, she doesn’t always come across as knowledgeable as she should when she’s speaking off-script, she’s got an annoying nasal accent…
Gee whiz, she’s better than Obama in every respect!
Sarah is a do-er. We need more do-ers and fewer talkers.
“One thing 30 minutes of this program did for me was make me wonder what people see in Palin.” –F
They see themselves. They see ordinary. They see basic values which, when slandered and threatened, will not retreat. They hear the words of Martin Luther: “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”
They see simplicity with which even children organize their lives: God, family, country. They see a model they want to adopt because they are tired of the baseless accusations, the usurpations of their rights, and the theft of their children’s minds.
There doesn’t have to be something deeper for them. What is there is enough. They aren’t looking for a savior. They already have one. Their hope isn’t in a genius, but in the savvy and traditions of our constitutional republic.
They see a sign that points to something larger than itself. And they agree with that message.
Neo,
One thing I realized is that TV Guide calls the show a docu-series.
Many others refer to it as a “reality” show with all the negative connotations that word offers.
What do you consider it?
It definitely isn’t a reality show in my mind – one with competition and voting people off like survivor or the MTV show – whatever the name of that was.
Off topic:
What we need in CA is a hispanic woman candidate for governor next time.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/14/latino-victories-have-democrats-panicking/
1. Bryan Says: All I have to do is not like Sarah Palin and suddenly I’m branded as a liberal?
Yes.
Any other questions?
2. grackle Says: Palin has said that she decided to step down because she was spending too much time fighting frivolous legal harassment, harassment made possible because of her office.
From Palin’s resignation speech:
She championed a law that was used to bring state government–and responded by walking away from the mess.
3. Palin’s resignation was the last straw for my support of her. Had she called on the legislature to rectify the law, resigning would have been understandable if the legislature refused.
4. I have no problem with Palin being a power broker in the GOP. I have no problem with her becoming an opinion shaper like Rush Limbaugh, and I have no problem with her getting rich from that. However, I no longer support–I oppose–her for the Presidency and she is not doing anything that would change my mind.
Baklava,
“Reality” shows are misnamed. They are really “Prisoner’s Delima” shows or “Tragedy of the Commons” shows.
Reality in a free world attempts to eliminate those problems to make life worth living. TV shows that exploit these concepts give contestants the chance to live in psychological hell for money.
Since that isn’t really “Reality”, the word has been destroyed. Another word which has lost its meaning thanks to some people – probably liberals, though I don’t know for sure.
If we take back the word “Reality” to its proper meaning, then Palin’s show is “Reality TV”, but not the distorted version. Its so confusing when liberals take over the language.
gs,
What she did was noble.
What she did was something Obama would NEVER do because he isn’t noble.
What she did is take herself out of the picture (of power) and hand it to her replacement for the good of Alaska.
It’s all in the way you look at things.
Her office (not just her) were spending 80% of their time responding to the charges and she had personally racked up half a million dollars in legal bills.
No family should have to go through that just to be a governor.
To require that of her gs – is torture, and is awful of you.
That’s my opinion. You are welcome to yours respectfully.
Sheesh, I did it again:
“She championed a law that was used to bring state government” -> “She championed a law that was used to bring state government grinding to a halt.”
To me the question comes down to Palin’s policies versus the opponents policies.
At the time of the race the McCain/Palin ticket had the prescription for the economy (lowering capital gains tax rates and corporate tax rates and even others). Obama/Biden had the virus.
If in 2012 it’s the same choice and Palin is on the ticket – her policies would BE what I vote for.
All this other smack means nothing. Doesn’t it?
What I like about Sarah Palin is her ability to instantaneously infuriate so many. I would not pay any attention to her if so many weren’t screaming “Don’t pay attention to her!” – Streisand phenomenon.
For a Party that prides itself as being for the common man and being started by Andrew Jackson, they sure dislike the modern version of Andy.
Baklava: I agree that it’s not a reality show in the way the term is usually used.
Although it does have some resonances with “Survivor.” 🙂
Bryan: actually, I prefer other candidates as well. But I don’t find Palin ridiculous. I find the hatred and ridicule of her to be mostly ridiculous, and unintentionally so.
1. Baklava Says: Her office (not just her) were spending 80% of their time responding to the charges and she had personally racked up half a million dollars in legal bills.
I draw attention to my #3:
2. Baklava Says: What she did is take herself out of the picture (of power) and hand it to her replacement for the good of Alaska.
To rephrase that less charitably, she passed the buck. Afaic the buck is supposed to stop at the chief executive’s desk.
3. Baklava Says: No family should have to go through that just to be a governor.
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
4. Baklava Says: To require that of her gs – is torture,…
I’m not requiring anything of her. I’m saying that her failure to make every possible effort to serve out her term and to correct a defective law that she championed ended my current interest in her as a potential President.
5. …and is awful of you.
I cite this without comment.
I guess it comes down to what you believe. If you believe there is a chance at this nation becoming unified, then Sarah is not your person. If you believe that there are two irreconcilable systems and only one will prevail, then perhaps Sarah is your person. I’m of the latter camp. It doesn’t have to be Sarah, but so far no others have blatantly identified the conflict as a struggle to the death. With perhaps the exception of Gingrich.
We are in a war. It’s not a war where bullets are flying. It’s the war defined by Major Michael A. Aquino in a 1980 exposition titled, “From PSYOP to MindWAr: The Psychology of Victory,” wherein the whole battle becomes convincing the other side that defeat is inevitable. (Hitler had early victories by using this method.) And the “trick” here is that it’s not propaganda because one side truly believes it possesses that truth. This kind of dovetails in with the “true believer” and BDS syndrome. The irony here is that this method of war was supposedly developed to be used against America’s enemies.
Curtis Says: I guess it comes down to what you believe. If you believe there is a chance at this nation becoming unified, then Sarah is not your person. If you believe that there are two irreconcilable systems and only one will prevail, then perhaps Sarah is your person. I’m of the latter camp.
IMHO that’s a fair statement, Curtis.
Unlike you, I am not in the latter camp at this time. Hopefully things will not deteriorate to the point that I go there.
If I had my druthers, all the prominent GOP Prez hopefuls–Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc–would stand aside and clear the national stage for emerging leaders.
Baklava says-
“3. Palin’s resignation was the last straw for my support of her. Had she called on the legislature to rectify the law, resigning would have been understandable if the legislature refused.”
I believe that Alaska has one of those (much to be preferred) part time legislatures and they would not be in session during the remainder of her term. That was one of the reasons she gave for resigning. The fact is, any law can be abused. Amendments to bad laws usually make bad laws worse, not better.
Speaking of bad laws, wait until the full force of the Dodd/Frank Financial fiasco makes it to a bank near you, if any survive until then.
Sorry Baklava. I think I cited to GS fueding with Baklava. Anyway, the point is the damn bad laws never, never get repealed.
There is nobody emerging more noble.
You look at her as a quitter.
I look at her as making a point – and her points are succinct.
It’s on you that you don’t get them.
From death panels to laws that fight corruption – the people of Alaska can wise up to the garbage and then VOTE the people out who continue with the garbage or have a system that continues the garbage.
Palin has shown that on domestic issues, she can take on opponents. What she has not shown me thus far is that she can handle the murkier waters of international diplomacy. By that, I don’t mean not having principles; I mean knowing how and when to play your cards. Obama got a free pass on international issues because of his name and Indonesian boyhood, and we can see how that’s turned out. Palin couldn’t do worse, but I’d like someone who could do better. She might be more valuable by criticizing government policies in a language accessible to the average person.
Steve G Says: I believe that Alaska has one of those (much to be preferred) part time legislatures and they would not be in session during the remainder of her term.
True. The legislature is in session from mid-January to mid-April. However:
a. According to Palin’s July 3 resignation speech, “Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile.” That ‘awhile’ may or may not overlap with the legislative session.
b. Moreover, “Special sessions are called by the Governor or by the Legislature and are limited to 30 calendar days.” Palin did not call a special session even though, according to her speech, the governor’s office was all but immobilized by the harassment. Nor, afaik, did she seek judicial review of the noxious provisions of the ethics law.
That was one of the reasons she gave for resigning.
If you mean that she said that legislative relief was not available, apparently I’m overlooking that statement in her resignation speech. Help me out, please.
The fact is, any law can be abused. Amendments to bad laws usually make bad laws worse, not better.
Surely we’re not doomed to live with every bad law indefinitely. I repeat, Palin was attacked via a bad law that she championed (her word, not mine).
You simply aren’t being logical gs.
She acted nobly and actually was selfless.
Obama would’ve done the opposite with selfishness.
He is stubborn.
She looks at the situation and adapts. She sees reality.
Do you?
According to Palin’s July 3 resignation speech, “Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile.” That ‘awhile’ may or may not overlap with the legislative session.
Whether Palin’s personal decision to resign might have or have not overlapped with a legislative session seems to me to be kind of frivolous as a reason to cite opposition to her.
Moreover, “Special sessions are called by the Governor or by the Legislature and are limited to 30 calendar days.” Palin did not call a special session even though, according to her speech, the governor’s office was all but immobilized by the harassment. Nor, afaik, did she seek judicial review of the noxious provisions of the ethics law.
Let’s imagine if Palin HAD called a special session to get the law overturned. I’m no lawyer but it may be that such a legislative session, IF it were successful in overturning the law, might not have given her an immunity from the legal proceedings already brought against her.
And it may not have curtailed further legal assaults since civil suits can be brought against anyone for almost anything — with no basis of violation of law whatsoever. As long as she was governor I suspect the legal harassment would have continued, even if the law had been repealed.
As for “judicial review,” such reviews can take years — meanwhile Palin would probably have continued to be harassed.
Besides if Palin, as governor, HAD called a special session in order to get the law appealed I believe there would have been a hue and cry from her detractors that she was using her office to manipulate things for her benefit. I think the MSM would have eaten her up and portrayed her as an ominous, evil manipulator trying to subvert rule of law.
Surely we’re not doomed to live with every bad law indefinitely. I repeat, Palin was attacked via a bad law that she championed (her word, not mine).
I don’t think Palin could have reasonably been expected before her selection as a Vice President and the vicious attacks had begun to comprehend the unprecedented amount of sheer hatred that was and is thrown her way. They hate her with a passion, which is one of the reasons I like her. If she arouses THAT much hatred from quarters I despise …
GS, Trying to change a law on the books so as not to look like you are guilty would be considered shady. Charlie Ranglesque.
Why would you ask for Palin to look Ranglesque gs?
BTW, She’s effective 🙂
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/13/palins-freshman-orientation-session-offers-a-key-piece-of-advice/
Neo, Massachussets is following CA
http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x290098837/Massachusetts-governors-second-term-will-push-tuition-for-illegal-immigrants
1. grackle Says: Whether Palin’s personal decision to resign might have or have not overlapped with a legislative session seems to me to be kind of frivolous as a reason to cite opposition to her.
grackle, you raised the issue of why Palin resigned. I quote, again: Palin has said that she decided to step down because she was spending too much time fighting frivolous legal harassment, harassment made possible because of her office.
I am not convinced by Palin’s rationale, and when I track down some specifics, I remain unconvinced.
Btw, my previous comment linked to the Alaska legislature’s home page. The direct link to information about sessions is here.
2. An alternative hypothesis: Had Palin sought legislative or judicial relief from the harassment, she would have looked foolish because she had championed the enabling law. So she didn’t seek it.
3. Speaking of frivolous, some enterprising cartoonist should start lampooning Palin as Rockette the Flying Squirrel, with Todd in the role of Bullwinkle. 😉
grackle, you raised the issue of why Palin resigned.
Actually, no. The issue was raised before I entered the discussion:
I don’t like her because she quit halfway through her governorship … in order to become a full-time media hog.
I responded to that comment by relating Palin’s stated reasons for resigning. But I don’t see the relevance of exactly when or who raised the issue. Perhaps the commentor could explain …
I am not convinced by Palin’s rationale, and when I track down some specifics, I remain unconvinced.
My curiosity is aroused. What “specifics”?
Btw, my previous comment linked to the Alaska legislature’s home page. The direct link to information about sessions is here.
Yes, but what’s the commentor’s point? Mere linking does not buttress an argument unless the link proves some kind of point. We are left wondering exactly what the commentor’s point is by the link.
An alternative hypothesis: Had Palin sought legislative or judicial relief from the harassment, she would have looked foolish because she had championed the enabling law. So she didn’t seek it.
Yes, I agree that Palin’s detractors would have certainly painted her as foolish for the reason given by the commentor, although I don’t believe that Palin could have reasonably been expected to realize the unprecedented fury with which she would be attacked after her selection by McCain.
But I think the major danger, more than the risk of being characterized as foolish, was that Palin would have been accused of trying to unethically use the power of her high office if she had used her authority to call for a special legislative session in order to seek relief from the legal harassment she was receiving. I think it would have been “foolish” indeed to give her detractors more ammunition for their sniping.
Speaking of frivolous, some enterprising cartoonist should start lampooning Palin as Rockette the Flying Squirrel, with Todd in the role of Bullwinkle.
Well, considering there has probably been hundreds if not thousands of cartoons ridiculing Palin and her family, we can’t be certain that such a cartoon hasn’t already been proudly displayed by some lefty magazine or newspaper.
grackle Says: …I don’t believe that Palin could have reasonably been expected to realize the unprecedented fury with which she would be attacked after her selection by McCain.
Many Presidents and politicians of Presidential caliber have been subjected to intense vicious attacks.
Therefore, I read grackle’s statement as a harsher criticism of Palin than I agree with.
Many Presidents and politicians of Presidential caliber have been subjected to intense vicious attacks.
Yes, others have been attacked but not to the extremes of scope and depth that Palin has had to endure. I can think of no other American political figure in the modern era that has been attacked as furiously as Palin. In my opinion the phenomenon of Palin Derangement Syndrome surpasses even Bush Derangement Syndrome in it’s unrelenting viciousness.
I believe Palin, having already participated in the political process from the grassroots on up to the high office of Governor, certainly expected that the usual rough and tumble common to political campaigns would come her way. But not the shameful, chilling and truly bizarre pathological malevolence that has been constantly directed at her ever since she first appeared on the national stage. That she not just continues but actually prospers in the face of such unearned enmity is a testament to her character.
Therefore, I read grackle’s statement as a harsher criticism of Palin than I agree with.
I’ve mulled over the commentor’s interpretation of my statement and have read the statement over looking for even an implied hint of criticism of Palin but do not see it. Is he saying Palin should have expected such harshness as she has received? That by her not having anticipated the unparalleled attacks to which she and her family have been subjected that Palin is somehow at fault? Myself, I tend to blame the attacker — not the victim.
Speaking of implication, notice, readers, that the commentor’s statement implies that Palin is of “Presidential caliber.” A Freudian slip? At any rate, inadvertent I’m sure.
grackle Says:
November 17th, 2010 at 12:12 am
Well said. I’ve said before that PDS is an order of magnitude worse than BDS, and I had already noticed that by mid-September 2008.
grackle is in italics:
I can think of no other American political figure in the modern era that has been attacked as furiously as Palin.
I disagree, but, absent a mutually agreed way of characterizing the degree of abuse, this is a judgment call afaic.
Is he saying Palin should have expected such harshness as she has received? That by her not having anticipated the unparalleled attacks to which she and her family have been subjected that Palin is somehow at fault?
Like Palin’s resignation speech did, my comments have focused on the ethics-based harassment.
Speaking of implication, notice, readers, that the commentor’s statement implies that Palin is of “Presidential caliber.”
My first comment in this thread implies that I was once a Palin supporter, which indeed I was.
A Freudian slip?
No.
At any rate, inadvertent I’m sure.
Again, no.
I decided a few minutes ago to check out Instapundit, where I found a link to this:
http://tinyurl.com/36vg42v
Almost comical but at the same time disturbing.
Me, earlier: I can think of no other American political figure in the modern era that has been attacked as furiously as Palin.
I disagree, but, absent a mutually agreed way of characterizing the degree of abuse, this is a judgment call afaic.
Well, the commentor could start by naming some other political figure who he thinks has been vilified and slandered more than Palin. Examples are such wonderfully concrete things. Vagueness, on the other hand, can be used to imply much that is simply not there.
Me, earlier, attempting to figure out exactly what a comment (Therefore, I read grackle’s statement as a harsher criticism of Palin than I agree with.) made by the commentor meant:
Is he saying Palin should have expected such harshness as she has received? That by her not having anticipated the unparalleled attacks to which she and her family have been subjected that Palin is somehow at fault?
The commentor’s reply:
Like Palin’s resignation speech did, my comments have focused on the ethics-based harassment.
Well, then perhaps the commentor could help us all by telling us just what point his “harsher criticism” statement was trying to make. When confronted by ambiguity I am necessarily forced into speculation but I would much rather have a comment that is clear in its meaning.
Me, earlier: Speaking of implication, notice, readers, that the commentor’s statement (Many Presidents and politicians of Presidential caliber have been subjected to intense vicious attacks …) implies that Palin is of “Presidential caliber.”
My first comment in this thread implies that I was once a Palin supporter, which indeed I was.
A Freudian slip?
No.
At any rate, inadvertent I’m sure.
Again, no.
Ok, maybe we’re onto something now. Let me see if I have this right — to paraphrase:
The commentor, who once thought Palin was of “Presidential caliber” but has since decided she is not, believes that she is no more harassed than any other ex-Vice-Presidential candidate.
His ultimate disillusionment came when she failed to use her power of Governor to call a special session of the Alaskan legislature to attempt to have a law repealed, which Palin had previously supported(a fact to which the commentor assigns great importance), which was being frivolously used to harass her and at any rate she should have at least attempted to get some sort of “judicial review” of the law — in other words, to try to get a judge to declare the law unconstitutional or something.
He doesn’t believe Palin’s stated reasons for resigning because of some as of yet unspecified “specifics” that he has managed to “track down.”
If I am wrong on any of the above synopsis I urge the commentor to correct me.
On the other hand I think Palin and her family was and is unfairly harassed, slandered and vilified to an unprecedented degree,
that a special session would have had no guarantee of repealing the law,
that repeal may not have provided relief from charges brought before repeal,
that furthermore a special session would probably have brought new accusations of using the power of her high office for unethical personal benefit
and that “judicial review” is a process that might not have resolved itself for years, and might have ended in affirmation of the law, thereby offering no real relief from the harassment
and was likely to have encouraged fresh accusations from her detractors of attempting to use the judicial system unethically.
But I still am curious about the commentor’s mysterious “specifics.” And of course there’s that vague “harsher criticism” comment that I’ve been puzzling over. Also, why a link to information about the Alaskan legislature was offered as argument without explanation.
I wondered too about Palin not working to reform the conflict of interest law,quiting instead. However, she also said it would be good for Alaska. The democrats won the election but followed Palin back to Alaska and continued their attacks.Now, she said it would be good for Alaska not to have a governor so preoccupied. Maybe she was being diplomatic. Maybe at that point she realized that even if she could protect herself from petty lawsuits she could not protect Alaska from the petty man in the White House. I believe this scenario is probably accurate. Also, with legal bills to pay and a family to feed, why not come down to the lower 48 and cash in on her popularity.It would be a logical thing to do and personally rewarding too: to be harrassed and financially drained while trying to do your job, to being paid to critique your harrassers.Bad girl,yep.
The law is being used against her only as far as I know.
She became a lightning rod because she excited people.
GS, if you can’t see that – then you are simply being obtuse.
She was being abused. You continue it.
She did the noble thing by returning Alaska back to Alaskans.
I would’ve done the same thing. It’s good values. It’s good thinking.
Would you have selfishly kept on – as if it was about you? 🙂
dw53 Says: I wondered too about Palin not working to reform the conflict of interest law,quiting instead…with legal bills to pay and a family to feed, why not come down to the lower 48 and cash in on her popularity.It would be a logical thing to do and personally rewarding too: to be harrassed and financially drained while trying to do your job, to being paid to critique your harrassers.
As I’ve commented in this thread, I am not objecting to Palin’s making money or being a GOP power broker. However, barring extraordinary circumstances, before supporting someone for the Presidency I want to see an extended track record in high office, preferably high executive office. By resigning, Palin declined to create such a track record.
(Quite apart from the healthcare issue, my opinion of Mitt Romney dropped sharply when he declined to run for reelection.)
’twas noble.
I just read an entertaining article about the subject of Palin and the media.
http://tinyurl.com/252phmk
I enjoy defending Palin. She is so often attacked unfairly. I would estimate that I’ve been involved in 5 or 6 fairly long debates on various blogs, much longer than on these comments — so far – and perhaps a dozen shorter exchanges. The attacks usually follow a formula so by now I have a number of well-honed counters readily at hand.
Another nice link. I’m putting this one in my ammo box for future debates.
http://tinyurl.com/2chlep2