Skip to main content

You know what? I hope that Sarah Palin runs for president. And loses. Badly.

I'm so tired of Sarah Palin's sense of grievance. But I know it's not going to go away -- it defines her. It is the reason, at this point, for her political existence. Don't believe me? Here's a Palin post offering President Obama advice on how to handle the BP oil spill.
My experience (though, granted, I got the message loud and clear during the campaign that my executive experience managing the fastest growing community in the state, and then running the largest state in the union, was nothing compared to the experiences of a community organizer) showed me how government officials and oil execs could scratch each others’ backs to the detriment of the public, and it made me ill.
You'd think Barack Obama had never, ever been a senator -- one elected to federal office two years before Sarah Palin became a governor. But you know what? I'm not going to replay the resume pissing match that indeed was resolved by voters two years ago.*

*OK, one item: A big chunk of Sarah Palin's gubernatorial experience with oil companies was using their money to send checks to Alaskans instead of taxing them. That looks nothing at all like the world non-Alaskans  live in.

But, lordy, a little class wouldn't hurt the woman would it? Showing respect for the president's actual accomplishments would be a good place to start -- unless Palin wants us to refer to her primarily as a onetime local sports anchor as the prime way we refer to her pre-2008 experience. It's true, of course, but it's not accurate. And showing a little respect for the voters -- instead of sneering at their judgment as she does here -- wouldn't be a bad second step.

Comments

namefromthepast said…
I'm not a Palin fan at all but someone point out to me what Barack's "actual accomplishments" are besides being upwardly mobile polically.

Seriously, the guy has never managed anything but himself and his image.

I agree to no "pissing match" I think Palin's time has come and gone politically but she has managed to do what exactly what Obama has done. They both used what little talent they have to get in the spotlight, completely alienate people from the opposite end of the polical spectrum then write books to capitalize financially.

Incidentally both Palin and Obama are "sneering at the voters" Obama and his party have pushed through a LOT of legislation that does not have the backing of the majority.

I find them quite similar if dissimilar politically.
Joel said…
Name: Let me clarify the comment somewhat. By "accomplishments" I meant actual, verifiable, indisputable resume lines. As in: Obama was a state senator, then a U.S. senator, then president. We can agree on those facts, can't we?

Palin, by pushing the "community organizers" meme over and over, basically ignores the middle 20 years of Obama's adult life ... to insinuate he never did anything but hang around the soup kitchen. That's false. You don't have to like him, you don't have to think he's got a good agenda or done much good with his time in politics, but can we agree he's at least been in the arena?
KhabaLox said…
Accomplishments?

Didn't Obama go to (and graduate from!) law school? Wasn't he Editor of the Harvard Law Review? There are a lot of things a candidate can do that look good on the resume. A law degree is one of them. Sports anchor is not.
namefromthepast said…
You are right Joel he has been elected to office repeatedly. As a conservative I find that makes him less qualified.

But I think you have stumbled on a better topic.

Where are the good candidates? I know what basic principles I'd like he or she to follow and you do too even if they aren't the same ones.

Is it too much to ask for somebody to have been successful at something other than politics? Show some class? Are these candidates really a reflection of ourselves? Obama, Palin, McCain, Biden, Pelosi, Reid.....is this really the best there is to offer?

Are real leaders too savvy to enter this ratrace?

Is lack of inspiration why the general population has so much apathy towards the debates?

I get disgusted with the whole spectrum, maybe that's why I think limiting the govt as much as possible is a good thing.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…