Archive for the ‘Sarah Palin’ Category


The Palin Resignation: A Vivisection

July 7, 2009

There’s been so much said about the Palin Resignation, and the reasons thereof, over the past week–and for good reason. Whether or not you’re a supporter of hers, it needs to be accepted that she is rightly a topic worthy or considerable discussion. The momentarily reinvigorated base constituency of the Republican Party embraced her as a rallying point when all seemed lost. Granted, it was a false hope, fed by her boisterousness and fake bluster, but it was a real sensation to those draped in Osama/Obama t-shirts with Joe the Plumber buttons adorning them.


A person desirous of the trappings of power also seems to have trapped something rather furry.

Sarah Palin–the actual person–is a mere sideshow to the idea of her is to some psychographics within the GOP. I don’t mean this as a slight to her–this is true of a huge swath of politicians and leaders in general. She was willing to stand at a podium and spew forth vitriol and emotional responses that many felt that they didn’t have the power to do themselves. She was the voice box of a frustrated group, encumbered by the massive sandbags George W. Bush failed to fill for Katrina, and made our men in uniform hide behind for a lie. Those Republicans were besieged by negative association, and were thus reluctant to be heard, even if it were just a venting of their built up anger toward everything they felt was against them.

With such new-found fame, and a place in the hearts of a significant constituency, it is puzzling that Palin would throw these things away without an eye on something greater. Thus, the talking heads on cable ‘news’ shows have been spending countless hours–between coverage of Michael Jackson’s death–putting forth their explanations on this matter. Most of it is utter bullshit, and here’s why:

A 2012 Palin run for the Presidency:

A first term Governor suddenly resigning shows a lack of regard for those who voted for her. There’s no immediate explanation of why, like there would be in ordinary circumstances such as this. Not only it is an awkward move to explain in any future campaign, it smacks of desertion of the highest order.

She was governor of a very small state–one smaller than Charlotte, North Carolina, and half the size of San Diego. This is usually a valid and consequential topic of discussion when pondering a person’s readiness for an office such as President. Even if she were to have served several terms as Governor, this would surely be an issue.

Her lack of academic credentials is a glaring defect in a desired rise from obscurity to sitting in the Oval Office. Academic achievement may not be an fail-safe predictor of political success, but without it, one has to wonder about the intellect of the individual if there isn’t a long track record of worldly success. Clearly, she doesn’t have any substantial successes in her life one can point to as world-class achievements. Being elected Governor of a small state is the world leader equivalent to having won a tennis match against Stephen Hawking.

A run for the Presidency would not only be a laughable move at this point, but

"..and so then that the same then that there is other same the."

"..and so then that the same then that there is other same the."

would surely only be to garner donations, and not an elected office. She hasn’t the experience, the intellectual prowess, or the political scorecard to make a legitimate run for President–she knows this, her advisors know this, and a great deal more than half of the U.S. electorate knows this. Plus, her obvious lack of understanding on issues (Just yesterday she called the Department of Justice the ‘Department of Law’) would plague any run for higher office to a greater degree than it did during that whole VP candidate mess.

If not a run for the Presidency, then what?

The explanation that she wants to campaign for others is preposterous, considering that this is the dead zone between election cycles. She would have no trouble either finishing out her term, or at the very least serving longer. Resigning makes her effectiveness lessened in campaigning for others as well, seeing as how she will instantly be viewed as a has been, rather than a current power holder. She would be effective only for one cycle in this capacity, and then quickly moved to the scrap heap.

A run for Senate would seem like a logical step for an ambitious person seeking national experience, but running from a Governor’s seat is much more potent than from the sidelines. This would be a poor explanation of the resignation.

The media pressure was too much, and she had to escape seems to be an underlying reasoning. If she would merely stay in Alaska, and doing the job of the office she holds, the media pressure wouldn’t exist. This is possibly the most foolish reasoning for her move.

She can make more in speaking fees than as Governor is one that initially made sense to me until I actually thought about it. She could still do high priced appearances as Governor–it doesn’t resolve the immediacy of her move.

Rick Sanchez pondered on live TV about her being pregnant. It didn’t stop her before (though the goings on of that episode are extremely suspect), and she even went into labor during a speech in Texas (they say), and flew all the way back to Alaska, drove to Wasilla, and then delivered the baby. If that was the case, pregnancy to her is like getting a blister lanced.

With all of these possibilities seemingly unlikely or outright foolish, what are we to make of such an abrupt departure from office?

Take no heed in the words of lawyers. Sarah Palin most likely has something else on the horizon that has forced a move otherwise unthinkable. She’s getting out before a storm, and putting herself in less of a vulnerable position. She’s not acting out of strength, otherwise any move that she made would make sense. She’s playing a hand out of weakness, trying to secure herself from damage so close, it already is causing her world to spin out of control.

She seemingly has no other choice but to resign, as all other explanations seem inadequate.

She seemingly has no other choice but to resign, as all other explanations seem inadequate.

Lawyers are paid to spin. That’s their duty. If something is coming that is potentially devastating to Palin, a lawyer is not going to publicly acknowledge that–they will frame the client to seem innocent while at the same time positioning them to face the least damage. That’s what they do. That’s what Palin’s lawyers are most likely doing at this very moment.

Something is up, otherwise her behavior pattern wouldn’t so abruptly change–and the only thing that makes sense is lessening legal and collateral political damage.


The Palin Scandal Redux

July 4, 2009

Back in October, I wrote a little piece about Sarah Palin and her house–the links to the building supply company, the Wasilla Sports Complex, and all of the odd goings on. Well, it looks like it may be coming to a head. She’s resigning, and word on the street is that the Wasilla Sports Complex quid pro quo is the reason why. Let’s take a look at my October of 2008 post:

Massive Palin Scandal Brewing

h1 October 13, 2008 A scandal twice the size of Ted Stevens’ is brewing for Sarah Palin. No, it’s not the troopergate report, which in its own right is a monumental scandal, but one that hasn’t hit the mainstream media yet. This one’s a doozie. A half million dollar doozie.

Those of us who pay attention to the election with our proverbial telescopes and microscopes have all seen the pictures of Sarah Palin’s beautiful home overlooking a pristine Alaskan lake. It’s very picturesque, and enviable for most Americans. Now, it’s all the more idyllic if you believe the Palin’s–Todd built it himself, with his own two hands. What a nice image, but is that image the true one?

The home was constructed in 2002, right before Sarah Palin’s tenure as the director of Ted Stevens’ PAC, Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Incorporated. Ted Stevens, you may recall, was indicted for taking a quarter of a million dollars worth of gifts in the form of construction on his Alaskan cabin, and there are potential striking similarities to Sarah Palin’s situation. Not only is it improbable that Todd Palin built an almost 4,000 square foot luxury home with a ‘couple of buddies’, but it is looking as though Todd Palin had very little to do with the construction other than supervision.

Remember the massive, and horribly overpriced sports complex that Sarah Palin pushed through in Wasilla? Well, it seems that the sports complex contractors and architect have strong links and ties to Palin. Spenard Building Supplies was one, and wouldn’t you know, they also supplied the materials for the Palin’s home. Sure, a small connection, but get this–Spenard also was the supplier for Ted Stevens cabin. This one building supply company is involved with Palin, Stevens, the Wasilla sports complex, and is a financial contributor to Palin. Keep in mind that the sports complex was being constructed at the very same time as the Palin’s home.

This connection is neither fleeting, nor minor. This appears to be a pattern of concurrent events that makes it more and more likely that the Palin’s home may have been some sort of quid pro quo arrangement for the massive influx of money into the building supply company. An area that could reinforce this connection would be if the architect of the Wasilla sports complex, Blase Burkhart (also a contributor to Palin), had anything to do with the construction of the Palin’s home.

Another interesting twist to the story is that Sarah Palin was, at the time, also running for Lieutenant Governor, a position that could further reward those contributing to her campaign, and those that were involved with the Wasilla sports complex and the construction of Sarah Palin’s home. We know that Alaska has been a bastion of corrupt political activities.

Spenard Building Supplies has connections to Ted Stevens indictment, but also the Murkowskis. They have been a major contributor to Murkowski’s daughter’s Senate run. Frank Murkowski was the center of a massive corruption probe, with his Chief of Staff, Jim Clark, being found guilty in a conspiracy involving Veco, the company at the center of the Ted Stevens corruption scandal. Spenard worked with Veco on Stevens cabin.

So, Sarah Palin’s home involves a company involved with Ted Stevens, Palin became the director of Ted Stevens PAC within months after the home was built, and there is a plausible quid pro quo with the involvement of the $12,500,000 Wasilla sports complex. These connections are proven with city, state  and court documents, the question now is whether Palin’s home had any amount of work contributed by Spenard, Veco, Burkhart, or any other contractors involved with the building of the Wasilla sports complex. My guess? There’s more to this story than has been uncovered so far. Todd Palin didn’t build a nearly 4,000 square foot luxury, lakeside home valued at over $500,000 by himself. Who helped him build it?

Sources for this entry include The Village Voice and StopThinkVote

Makes sense to me still. How about you?


I’ll be back sometime within a few days with updates

November 12, 2008

Sorry if it looks as though the blog has been abandoned, it isn’t. Just basking in a great victory for progress in America, and I’ll be back once my batteries are recharged for some new righteous indignation!


WoooooooHooooo! President-Elect, Barack Obama.

November 4, 2008

What a wonderful day for change, but foremost in my mind is the return of the United States from being an international joke.


First Election Results In!

November 4, 2008

Obama wins both Hart’s Location, and Dixville Notch (in my wonderful New Hampshire). The ballot tally in Hart’s Location was 17-10 for Senator Obama. Dixville Notch gave Senator Obama a greater victory, 15-6!

The tally now stands at 32-16

John McCain is not expected to overcome this 16 vote deficit.


Palin Claims US is at War With Iraq AND Iran

November 2, 2008

She is now officially the dumbest politician on the national stage.

It’s dangerous for her to be anywhere close to any public office in the US. Mayor is too much for an idiot of this magnitude.


The Undeniable Idiocy of Palin

October 31, 2008

Sarah Palin sometime just before, and just after saying something completely asinine

Celebrities are notorious for saying some of the most outrageously asinine things that can be imagined. Tom Cruise, the master of glibness, has a streak of about 20 years of this, as does Jon Voight. These aren’t sane men, at least not if their silly comments are a peek into their actual worldview, and not just moments of confusion in front of the cameras. It doesn’t matter what their political views are, bat-shit insane extends throughout the whole spectrum. We expect this from them, and the other people famous for memorizing lines of dialogue, but Sarah Palin? She has a special place in the bat-shit insane category–a place reserved for those that should know better, but are just far too dumb to understand.

Politicians seeking the highest offices of the nation are supposed to be intelligent. They need to have the wherewithal to analyze and solve problems of such magnitude that history is affected by their decisions. A sound base of understanding and capability to piece together the various doctrines set forth by the forefathers and the preceding great administrators of our democracy is absolutely mandatory to make such decisions. One of the most basic of these doctrines is the Bill of Rights.

We should be able to expect that someone put forth as a major party candidate has a firm understanding of the Bill of Rights. It’s only twenty seven amendments that need to be understood, and one of those was repealed, simplifying the task. With sixteen years in politics, no matter the level she was serving at, one could reasonably expect Sarah Palin to have a firm grasp of these simple concepts. However, she has fallen far short of reasonable expectation, and her latest insight into the Bill of Rights leaves us no doubt as to the level of idiocy she has attained.

For those that have refused to read, or even take a quick gander at the Bill of Rights, here’s the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There’s six main points within the this amendment, so let’s just take “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

Sarah Palin, in all of her glory, stated today:

If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

How monumentally idiotic is this statement? Not all of the marble quarries, in all of the countries on earth, could possibly provide the material to celebrate this idiocy with a monument fittingly large enough. It’s that convoluted, that moronic, and that far off from what the First Amendment deals with. We expect more from a major party nominee for Vice President.

Let’s just deal with her First Amendment right to free speech, for the time being. She has the right to say a lot of things–there is no denying this–and she’s speaking very, very freely. Some could argue that she’s even riding a fine line between free speech, and speech that is slanderous (per se). I won’t go into that here, as slander is tort law, and we’re just dealing with the First Amendment in a more pure state.

She hasn’t been stopped, by any party, from speaking. Many, if not most, of her speeches are televised, broadcast around the country, and the world, for billions to hear. There has been no speech filter placed between herself and the masses huddled in front of the evening news, and no attempt to stop her from spouting off what she wants to on the stages constructed for that purpose. Her freedom of speech has not only not been denied, it has been amplified far beyond the common person’s ability.

Her assertion that the the press is threatening her ability to exercise her freedom of speech is ludicrous. She cites the “fear of attack” by the ‘mainstream media’ as that threat to her freedoms. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state, nor in any precedent, that the press cannot examine and analyze the speech made by an individual to the point of making that person fearful to speak freely. On the contrary, the press is guaranteed to do such things, right there after the individual’s right to the freedom of speech.

The press needs to be free to criticize Sarah Palin’s various opinions and statements put forth in order for our democracy to function well. It’s not a matter of getting her to stop speaking, or to dissuade her from do so, but to inform the general public of the veracity (or lack thereof) and implications of the various statements she makes. The freedom of the press, especially in disseminating information and opinion contrary to that which is put forth by our politicians, is not only in the best interests of the public, it is mandatory for the continuation of informed voting.

This cockamamie argument that the press labeling some of her speech as ‘negative campaigning’ is abridging her freedom of speech is not only wrongheaded, but a dangerous mischaracterization of the First Amendment. Her speech has not been infringed upon in the slightest, and to posit that criticism of her statements by the press is harmful to her First Amendment rights is laughable. That same press, that ‘mainstream media’ that she is attacking is the same press that gives her hour upon hour of coverage…in her own words. She could have even more camera time, if she so chose, but her ineptness as answering even the simplest of questions has made the McCain campaign limit the outlets of her free, and mind-numbingly foolish, speech.

Sarah Palin, spare us your horrifically idiotic interpretations of the First Amendment. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Your freedoms have not been threatened, but if you get elected all of our freedoms will be threatened by your idiocy.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine