home

Pity Poor Palin ... The 'Victim' Threatens to Sue

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:58:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

When a public figure like Sarah Palin drops a bombshell resignation on the public without providing a reasonable contemporaneous explanation, the public figure should anticipate that public reactions will include speculation about the reason for her decision. Given the questions Wayne Barrett raised last year about the relationship between materials used to build Palin's house and materials used on state projects by contractors who received lucrative state contracts, it isn't surprising that some people wondered whether Palin's resignation was related to a criminal investigation.

Jeralyn pointed out a significant flaw in that theory: the expiration of the statute of limitations probably precluded prosecution, even if wrongdoing occurred. As Jeralyn noted yesterday, the FBI put an end to the speculation by announcing that Palin is not under investigation. And as Jeralyn reported in an update to that post, despite inviting speculation by making a sudden and unexplained announcement, Palin is threatening legal action against the speculators. How bizarre is that? [more ...]

Palin's attorney singled out an Alaskan blogger because "she went on national television and talked about it," but he also threatened legal action against "those who re-publish this defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post." Never mind that the Times and the Post didn't report the rumors. Is it defamatory to falsely accuse newspapers of defamation?

As the linked story from the Anchorage Daily News points out, Palin would need to prove actual malice to win a defamation suit, and that standard is one she can't conceivably meet. Wonkette's amusing take on Palin's empty threats to sue newspapers and the internets comes to the appropriate conclusion:

Sarah Palin, a snowbilly grifter who spent her entire adult life desperately trying to become a Public Figure, apparently wants her attorneys to stupidly and pointlessly threaten American practitioners of free speech regarding our public figures and elected officials.

Palin is painting herself as a victim, but she has only herself to blame for speculation about her motive for resigning. Yesterday, Palin invited further speculation by claiming she quit to pursue "a higher calling." What that might be remains a mystery. Would anyone care to speculate?

< Californians Speak Out Against Death Penalty | Sunday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pity Poor Palin ... The 'Victim' Threatens to Sue | 167 comments (167 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Please, please stop. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:04:55 PM EST


    Not a chance. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    The bizarre behavior of prominent Republicans is an appropriate topic of conversation.  Sarah Palin is no exception.

    Parent
    To me, there are many very important (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    problems facing our country and our world and I don't think Gov. Palin is one of them.  But carry on.

    Parent
    Considering she was the Vice Presidential (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    nominee less than a year ago, and she has been put forward as one of the leaders of her party, she is definitely a) a public figure, and b) newsworthy, in my opinion.

    Parent
    She is a public figure and newsworthy. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    Yes, she resigned.  We don't really know why and we don't really know what she will do next.  All speculation.  Let's just wait and see.

    Parent
    Have you read any blogging (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    that was newsworthy?

    Parent
    Totally agree, TChris (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    great post!

    Parent
    Bizarre behavior (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder.

    Would it be okay if I decided to dedicate myself about Palin? I won't becaue it is ridiculous.

    I completely disagree with the manner in which bloggers of ALL STRIPES have written about Palin since she first came on the scene. I think it is simply wrong.

    Parent

    Please don't stop! (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    Sarah Palin wants to make laws that would put the government in charge of Americans' most private personal and family decisions.
    As such, she is a threat to every American's  civil liberties.

    Anyone who sets him or herself up as the moral arbiter of the land invites scrutiny.  

    Poor Sarah wants to shovel it out, passing judgment on who is and isn't a real American, but she can't take it, or so it seems.  

    Keep the heat on, TChris et al.

    Parent

    Every Republican wants to do that (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    Why just Palin? FYI, Mitt Romney is going to be the next GOP nominee in case anyone actually cares about these issues.

    Parent
    Palin is scarcely the only Republican (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    who attracts the attention of blogs.  Governor Sanford and his family can attest to that.    As a rather unexpected VP candidate, Palin was the center of  media attention during the election season.   Now she is back in the limelight because of her unexpected and unexplained resignation.  I don't see anything unusual about that.

    If and when Romney is the nominee, the blogs and the media will focus on him.   That's how it goes.

    Parent

    Comparable attention (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    Comparable treatment?

    Sorry, that is simply not true imo.

    I think Palin has driven the Left blogs insane frankly.

    Parent

    Maybe not comparable, (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    but commensurate with her position on the national stage.  

    In fact, Sanford would not  have received as much attention were it not for his pretentions for higher office.

    The higher one climbs on the political ladder, the more one captures the limelight, for good and for bad.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    What do you think the coverage should be of the fellow who is actually VP?

    Parent
    Oh, my. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    The fellow who is actually VP is in the dog house, right where he belongs.

    Parent
    Who says it's just Palin? (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    I write about Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee and Joe the Plumber and Justice Scalia and Sean Hannity and John Yoo and a host of other right wingers (including Mitt Romney) who want to inflict their crazy ideas on the rest of us.  Why should Sarah Palin be immune from similar criticism?

    Parent
    Who sez (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    that comment was about you? I did make a comment though - can you honestly say you write the same way about Palin than you do about your list?

    I do not think so.

    Parent

    In fact TChris (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    I defy you to link to that post where you discussed Palin's actual views on actual issues.

    Let's see them.

    Parent

    Do you read my posts, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    I wrote here about Palin's "actual views" on the aerial killing of wolves.  I wrote here about Palin's "actual views" on equal pay for women.  I wrote here about Palin's "actual views" on the political role played by the VP (a post with which your disagreed, so I guess you read that one, but it nonetheless discussed an "actual issue").  I wrote here and here and here about Palin's "actual views" on energy issues.  I wrote here about Palin's "actual views" about political corruption and Ted Stevens.  I wrote here about Palin's "actual views" about terrorism and abortion clinic bombers, and here about her "actual views" on the meaning of patriotism.  I wrote here about Palin's "actual" lack of understanding of foreign policy.

    I could go on, but you are so obviously wrong I don't want to waste my time. There's more lawn to mow and it's a beautiful day.

    Parent

    And you wrote here about . . . (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    what exactly?

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    Your links hardly support the characterization you give them.

    For example, your post about her positions on "energy issues" was making fun of "drill, baby, drill."

    As I said, I suggest that people read what you wrote and see which one of us is right.

    Parent

    I'm fine with that. (none / 0) (#101)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:05:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Untrue. (none / 0) (#115)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    Assuming you are referring to the first of the three cited posts on energy issues, the post contrasted Palin's advocacy of oil drilling with her virtual dismissal of solar power as a means of achieving energy independence.

    Parent
    Opinions (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    I think we just have a different opinion on those post TChris.

    As we both said, the links are there for folks to judge.

    Parent

    Um, you call that writing about Palin's view (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    on Ariel killing of wolves? Rather lacking, don't you think? Linking to 2 articles and then asking what a appears to be a snarkish question . . . really?

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    definitely writing about some of her actual views in the posts you've linked to (although some are actually about McCain's views, and Palin is only mentioned by association).  

    Why not stick to those instead of revealing such PDS?

    Are you saying in this post that if your client was a public figure, people were telling lies, saying that your client was under FBI investigation when your client WAS NOT under FBI investigation that you wouldn't advise your client to sue?


    Parent

    Advising groundless litigation (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    is not a smart thing to do.  Nor would a capable lawyer threaten to sue newspapers for reporting rumors that they didn't actually report.

    There's a difference between speculating about the possibility of a criminal investigation and asserting that an individual is under investigation. Speculating about possibilities is not a lie (and again, I think Palin invited speculation by abruptly resigning without offering a reasonable explanation for that decision).

    Finally, I don't suffer from PDS any more than I suffer from D(obson)DS or H(uckabee)DS or T(ancredo)DS.  I can write about the whacky things they say without offending our readership, but somehow Palin is supposed to be off limits.  I don't buy it.  And frankly, I'm quite sick of this (X)DS BS. Criticizing the actions or statements of an individual with whom one disagrees is not a sign of derangement.

    Parent

    Not picking a fight (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    But I think you misunderstand the nature of the lawyer's letter in this case.

    It threatens litigation should the KNOWN false information be republished.

    In fact, in many jurisidctions, such a letter (or a retraction request) is required before you can sue.

    You are misunderstanding the letter and, imo, have not understood its purpose.

    Parent

    I think I can read, BTD. (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:37:12 PM EST
    According to the linked ADS story:

    Van Flein wrote that his letter "is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish this defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

    "Such as" implies that the Times and Post (like Huffington and MSNBC) actually republished or repeated the allegedly defamatory statement.  They didn't.  It makes no sense to single out the Times and Post if the letter's purpose was to warn all media outlets not to republish false statements.  I agree that a retraction request is commonly a prerequisite to a defamation suit, but in the case of the Times and Post, there was nothing to retract.

    The lawyer's explanation for singling out the Times and Post is nonsensical:

    Van Flein said he believed they were asking questions. "What I've been informed is that they've been interviewing people in Wasilla about this, and have tried to interview the governor's parents about it," Van Flein said.

    Is it defamatory for reporters to interview people to try to get at the truth? I thought that's what reporters were supposed to do.  Whatever questions the reporters for either paper allegedly asked didn't lead to a published story. That suggests responsible reporting:  the papers found no story so they didn't write it.

    The letter and its baseless litigation threat is beyond bizarre.  And that, BTD, is what my post is about.

    Parent

    It put them on noitce (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    to NOT "re-publish" TChris. The idea that giving the Times and the Post notice that the allegation is false is crazy is not well founded,  imo.

    The letter was intended to insure that NO such story would in fact be published. That is that the false charges being bandied about would not be RE-published by the post. (Here, "republish" has a legal meaning - it means repeating a defamatory statement.) That it wasn't could be a result of 2 things - (1) the Times and the Post are actually responsible journalists; or (2) having been put on notice, they dropped the story.

    The letter was not out of line as you suggest, imo. The threat of litigation, as you put it, was IF the Times or Post republished the story.

    Due respect, this is not an unusual occurrence. I've seen letters like that on more than one occasion.

    Was it written in a political statement way? Sure? Was it not lawyerly in its language? Sure. but its legal INTENT was the same.

    I do not question your reading skills. I do question your interpretation of the legal import of the letter.

    I think it colors your misinterpretation of these events.

    Parent

    About the "Such as"... (none / 0) (#142)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    Can that phrase be used as a pre-emptive warning against others, whether they've printed the false statement or not?  Or does someone have to monitor every web site and periodical and wait for them to take their "first strike" before issuing site-specific warnings?

    I'm wondering if, for instance, on a Monday mornign, Web Site One claims that Athlete X is being investigated by the FBI for running a gambling operation.  That afternoon, the FBI makes a clear denunciation of that charge, and Athlete X warns Web Site One not to re-publish the statement.  That evening, Web Sites Two and Three both publish the the claim.  They weren't directly warned by Athlete X's lawyers, so they think they can safely publish the statement, even if they know that the FBI had clearly denied it.

    Certainly, the Palin lawyers seem to be taking some cheap shots at some web blogs like the Hufington site, but maybe the inclusive phrase "such as" is not compoeletely uncommon in things like this?

    Just wondering...

    Parent

    Normally (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    The notice letter would not be written in that way.

    It would be more generalized and sent to the publications you want to put on notice.

    Obviously the notice letter was politicized and hating the Times (with reason in most instances) and the Post (why?) is a conservative principle, so Palin's lawyer was playing politics there no question.

    Here's an interesting new fact - the Huffington Post just posted a piece (they send them to me by e-mail) where they repeat that there is a "rumor" that Palin is being investigated by the FBI.

    This is clearly actionable defamation now. I wonder if  Palin will do anything about it?

    Parent

    A number of these are ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:09:21 PM EST
    on McCain's views.

    Parent
    Untrue. (none / 0) (#116)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:48:08 PM EST
    Each of the posts I selected specifically refers to views that Palin expressed or adopted.

    Parent
    Palin gets a lot of attention from the Left (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    because she gets a lot of attention from the Right.  If the Right had not gone bananas over her, no one here would care.

    She was the VP nominee for a 72 year old Presidential nominee.  She tied Romney in a recent CNN poll of presidential preference of Republicans.    She stirs up the passions of the right (that should scare you.)

     

    Parent

    Not buying (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    I do not believe that is true.

    Palin triggers irrationality on the Left.

    She is the Left's Clinton (not to compare their capabilities, intellectual, political or otherwise.)

    Parent

    Is it your opinion Gov. Palin and her (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    handlers read TL?

    Parent
    If Governor Palin is truly going off (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    to private life that decision needs to be respected in every way. If, rather, she is really planning on continuing a public life after Aug 1, outside of public office but as a fund-raiser, advocate for right wing causes, or as a presidential contender, there is no reason that her positions should be immune from early and frequent criticism.  Indeed, her simplistic and intolerant politics need  earnest confrontation. However, the criticism of  some pundits is indistinguishable from that of late-night comics with ridicule of her family and her folksy mannerisms at its base.  Such behavior is not only sophomoric but also counterproductive for it eclipses the dangers lurking in her politics and engenders sympathy for the abuse.  

    Parent
    As I understand this blogging thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    You can leave any time you wish, and you can start your own blog and write about the events and opinions that are more appropriate for discussion, and then in the free market of ideas you will eclipse this site with your traffic and show us all up for being liberal fools when we comment on your site.

    Isn't that why the Right dominates the blogosphere?

    Wait.

    Parent

    I'll speculate . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    the mudslinging and slander about her and her family has reached a critical mas for her, legal threat is a preemptive strike to perhaps tone it down and give her family, particularly her children some peace.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    She said that she will continue her work to turn the back the clock on women's rights and other wingnut causes. That hardly sounds like she is going to give anyone in her family some peace.

    What she did say is that she wanted to give "Alaska" some peace, and that is why she is resigning to do her work from "the outside".

    Nice fantasy though. Send her a check.

    Parent

    Removing herself from politics (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    and continuing to work for her causes are 2 different situations. She can run around to her heart's delight now promoting her messed up ideas. Generally, private citizen's children are not subjected to the brutality of politics (unless they land their behind in rehab etc and then it's just entertainment fodder for the 24hr  news cycle that must be fed).

    I see her getting out there and firing up her base/causes, whether the fact her political career seems over will effect how people treat her children remains to be seen. It may just stop all the ethics complaints though . . . easier to be "pure" with out having ethics complaints filed on you every other week  ;)

    Parent

    Where Have You Been (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    For the last 20  years. The GOP are the party of family values. The kids and husband, aka family, are part of the bundle. If you remember, during the campaign, she does not travel alone.

    She has only said that she wants to spare Alaska, not her family, I am sure that they will continue to be props for her.

    Parent

    But there is a dif between a sitting GOPer (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    /GOPer running for office, and one running a round to promote their insane agenda as a "private citizen". And her family and values are known at this time, so I doubt she'll be dragging her children all over the lower 49. I don't know if it will stop the attacks on them, I was just speculating, not speculating whether it will work. And my speculation could be totally wrong ;) That's what speculatin' is all about. Lighten up!

    Will Letterman's sexist Palin jokes work as well now that she isn't running the state? And won't some folks just look pathetic continuing to attack her children? Hard to say, eh?  ;)

    Parent

    We'll See (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    And there is a difference between sexist attacks, for instance JMM (TPM) headlines about fish, as if he was some sort of teenage caveman laughing with the other guys about women and fish..

    Those attacks are really damaging imo. Other than that, she is going to fight her way to be a spokesperson for wingnuttia, imo. My bet is that the family is forced to join up with the circus, but we'll see...  

    I assume that she is moving out of ALaska.

    Parent

    I saw that (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    [F]or instance JMM (TPM) headlines about fish, as if he was some sort of teenage caveman laughing with the other guys about women and fish..

    I saw the headline, and he was quoting from her speech.  I didn't get the subliminal neanderthal message that you apparently did, and I am as shallow and crass as any male of your acquaintance.  Having been enlightened, I still don't see it.

    If there IS a subliminal message, take it up with Sarah.  She said that only "dead fish go with the flow," apparently implying that she is a LIVE fish, whatever her own implications of that status might be.  With Sarah, who can know what she means?

    Parent

    Plain;s reference is easy to understand (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    the Left chose to act like idiots about that particular one - to wit, salmon swim UPSTREAM (against the flow.)

    This is actually one of the most obvious examples of how stupid the Left has decided to look on this.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    That would be a commonly held inaccuracy and makes her reference less valid if we are to assume she was referring to Alaska Salmon.

    Salmon swim upstream to spawn and die. They go with the flow to grow.

    Alaska Salmon live and grow in the ocean.

    Parent

    Spawning is living (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    for a species.

    Parent
    It's Common Saying (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    And its meaning is rather obvious as was the twist JMM put on it.

    Parent
    Test (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    If GWB, Cheney, Franken or other men said it would JMM post it as a earthshattering headline???

    Parent
    Of course not (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    But you attirubte soley to sexism. I attribute it to Palin Derangement Syndrome, which includes sexism but something else as well. It is hard to describe. But it is clear that Palin makes the Left blogs irrational..

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    I believe that her personal power is threatening, apart from her libertarian wingnut views. It is really unusual for a very attractive woman of childbearing age to reach this level of national politics. I believe that has to do with a deep level of sexism in the US that makes many on both sides of the aisle's heads explode.

    Of course much more on the left because of her political views, and that her vitality, so to speak, scares the sh*t out of them.

    It is really irrational and I believe that it is institutionalized sexism at the core.


    Parent

    IOW (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    She uses her sexuality the same way male pols do. That is a big no no, in our culture. Women are supposed to be maternal at best, a sexy leader who is female is too much for many to take.

    Think GWB and his macho schtick, that playing on our societies sex appeal for a man, imo. The double standard in this area is huge and way below the surface.

    It reminds me of when in 1872 or so Manet painted a picture called Olympia. It's prominent spot in the Paris exposition was super short lived. It was "skied", iow, put up near the rafters where it was hard to see. THe criticism of that painting by otherwise smart people (men of course) was idiotic as if they all of a sudden lost mental capacity.

    The reason was because the painting was done in the style of a flash photograph, and all the upstanding men looking at it were deeply embarrassed because in their vest pocket were similar looking photographs aka early porn.

    Parent

    Palin scares me as much as Beck (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    It is not the gender of the person expressing the views....It is the knee-jerk emotionalism and anti-intelluctual theocratic dogmatism....

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    That is why I don't like her as well.

    Her sexuality does not freak me out although it is unusual, if not unheard of from women pols. I think her sexual power is in large part what makes mostly sensible people say stupid things. Not sure what other woman politician is comparable in that regard, now or historically.

    Parent

    Palin is the epitome (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:10:14 PM EST
     of unthinking, self-righteous, theocratic gut-instinct conservative activism that scares true conservatives.  Some may call it conservative populism.

    She is the head of the Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity wing of the party....

    Parent

    There is no other wing (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    Why is it so hard for folks to accept?

    BTW, Sarah Palin is much smarter than McCain por Biden in my opinion.

    But no one can imagine that being true. Why is that you think? Many of you have been inculcated by Broderism and while you denounce it you absorb it.

    Parent

    The Vanity Fair article on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    shows it is not just the Left that has problems with her.  She was at war with her own staffers--both men and women and some pretty smart people.  It wasn't a Democrat who called her a diva.

    I think Palin is savvy--not smart.  There is a difference.

    Parent

    VF article by Purdum (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    is pretty useless.

    the Murkowski/Young/Stevens wing of the Alaska GOP hates Palin of course.


    Parent

    But it wasn't those folks (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    who dished dirt on her--it was the McCain people.

    The Left ridiculed Sanford too.   Ensign will probably survive--because he made the admission and then shut up instead of talking and talking like Sanford.

     

    Parent

    I agree Sully is (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    obsessed with Palin and is sexist--or worse, the "m" word may fit.

    BUT, that does not apply to all of Palin's critics.

    Parent

    Sarah has more energy (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:04:36 PM EST
    than either McCain or Biden, but energy does not equal intelligence. How smart is it for any politician to resign from a governorship 17 months early? There is no excuse for such behavior from someone who is not under investigation for a serious crime. It was extremely irresponsible and dull-witted.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    Unless what she says is true and wants out of politics all together.

    Parent
    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    When one accepts an elected position, one is bound by one's oath of office to fulfill that position to the best of one's ability.

    For Sarah to simply quit with such a flimsy explanation is an insult to the people of Alaska and a disgrace to the office of Governor.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    They will do fine without her. Her point, perhaps, the most honest imo, was that all the national attention she was getting was costing AK money and diverting energy away from stuff that needed to get done.

    Of course she is free to do as she pleases, it is a free country, unless, that is, you are the victim of preventative detention, or are poor and arrested for something.

    Parent

    And I think she's dumber than (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:04:48 AM EST
    Dan Quayle and the most unqualified person to run for the VP in my adult lifetime. So there.

    Parent
    Blatant Sexist Headline (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    JMM put that quote in gigantic letters, as if it were the most important thing she said. The fact that she said it does not let him off the hook. He turned it into a sexist attack, imo. He is outright sexist, and an embarrassment to the progressive left when it comes to women.

    Sorry that you do not get it.

    Parent

    FOX News lead with that quote today (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    So, the dead fish comment was seen as memorable by those who like Palin.

    Parent
    Really? (2.00 / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    Or it could be that JMM and FOX have something in common despite their diametrically opposed political views.

    Parent
    I haven't figured out if she's moving (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    or just traveling more. If she moves, I would suspect it would have to be where they could continue their lifestyle.

    I'm sure the family will show up on occasion. For instance, it was perfectly legit to see them together for the NY trip. She was at an event that was personal to the family and an area she would like to help. And even for that, they weren't all traveling with her. Frankly, even as a bratty teen, I would have been ticked if my parents didn't include me in those prime seats at the new Stadium, lol!~ Of course, they would have had to gag me around Rudy  ;)

    I did not see the TMP headline. Thanks for the heads up, now I know to avoid. I've maxed out on some of this sh!t. I think I'll re-balance with some food politics and food fun :)

    Parent

    I think there's a double standard here (none / 0) (#57)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    When Letterman makes jokes (sure, some tasteless) about Palin, it's supposedly sexist.

    However, he has been making sex jokes about Bill Clinton for ages; he was relentless during the Lewinksy affair.

    So apparently it's ok to make jokes (that are similar) about men, but not about women, because that's sexist.


    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:27:26 PM EST
    Jokes  about Clinton having sex have, unfortunately, a basis in reality.

    Letterman's joke about Palin's CHILDREN was simply tasteless and inexcusable.

    Parent

    What I mean by unfortunate is (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    that Bill clinton's extramarital sex life was treated as a legitmate news story.

    I always objected to that and it would be hypocritical of me not to condemn it when it happens to folks with political views different than mine.

    That was precisely my objection to the NYTimes story about John McCain and Vick Iselin.

    Jeralyn and I disagreed on that one too.

    Parent

    Palin's daughter, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:07:36 AM EST
    now 18, didn't have sex? As I said at the time, what Conan O'Brien said about Paris Hilton was worse. Her 18 year old daughter is going on national tv to talk about abstinence. She's a public figure too. As is her former boyfriend, who spent a week with an Esquire reporter for a feature article on him.

    They are all fair game. It has nothing to do with sexism.

    Parent

    Not likely (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    If you want to be left alone, and that's the reason for resigning, then you do two things:

    1. You should probably say so, but most of all:
    2. You stop making headlines. Threatening strange lawsuits against media outlets who didn't even do anything is not the way to stay out of the news.


    Parent
    Media makes headlines (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    Not the people written about.

    Parent
    True, but.. (none / 0) (#45)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    If you don't give them something to write about, the chances of making headlines go down considerably.

    And the subject here isn't even tabloids, it's blogs and those evil liberal media (as people like Palin see it) such as the NYT, WaPo and MSNBC.

    Making strange lawsuit threats that wouldn't hold up in court, partly against outlets who didn't even do what you're accusing them of, is not a good way to stay out of the news.


    Parent

    She held a press conference (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    on the least newsworthy Friday of the year.

    Hard to see this as Palin seeking attention.

    Making lawsuit threats, unfortunately, is not uncommon from many public figures.

    To pretend Palin invented this tactic is absurd. BTW, in the face of reckless speculation that she was about to be charged criminally, it seems to me Palin's threats have better legal standing than most.

    I am almost quite struck by the difference in attitudes about what is "acceptable" when writing about celebrities. Some folks get upset if you mention the documented history of one celebrities lifelong bizarre behavior, including pedophilia and the next day engage in baseless and irresponsible speculation about a different public figure.

    Hard to find the principle there.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    I really do wish that people would stop writing about Palin.

    But I also think that her actions, now and in the past, haven't exactly given the impression that she wants to avoid the spotlight.


    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    the attention she receives is certainly disproportionate to what she has done to seek attention.

    I think even this latest episode is a case in point. the Friday afternoon before the 4th of July holiday is not exactly the day to achieve maximum attention.

    Parent

    I think the case in point (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Cards In 4 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    was her going to a Yankee game and having Letterman make jokes about her daughter getting knocked up.  She came to NY to speak at a fundraiser for autistic children and Letterman drags her kids into a joke.

    Parent
    I saw the lawsuit threat as (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    part of stepping down. I mean after what's been said, it was pretty easy to predict some more "speculation" was going to start flying (no matter how stupid some people think you are). Now, if she had waited a week or so and then threatened the lawsuits, I'd def call it a headline grab.

    I don't think she wants to be left alone, I think she wants to change what's happening and gain some control. I don't think you really understood my original comment, especially the "tone it down" part.

    Parent

    Celebrities sue all the time! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    Palin is a celebrity.  Palin is suing.

    Just tell me how it ends.  Until the story concludes, it's all useless speculation.

    Parent

    Honestly... (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:02:43 PM EST
    She is not interesting enough as a person for all this discussion.

    Parent
    Don't interfere while (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by SOS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    she's making mistakes. (Sun Tu)

    heh... (none / 0) (#161)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:53:26 AM EST


    Parent
    true enough, (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    Palin is painting herself as a victim, but she has only herself to blame for speculation about her motive for resigning.

    but facts never interfered with the right-wingnuteria from claiming it's all a plot against her by the left.

    perhaps,

    Yesterday, Palin invited further speculation by claiming she quit to pursue "a higher calling."

    she's going to become a rabbi, and inspect hotdog production facilities, to ensure they're keeping kosher? :)

    In her vocabulary and world-view (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    wouldn't motherhood be a "higher calling" than being governor (or than politics generally)?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    For one, she's been doing motherhood all along. She's not a "woman must stay home to be a good mother" winger. Those winger women stay home and let their man do the talkin'  ;)

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Peter G on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:01:11 PM EST
    For a person to believe that "motherhood" would be a "higher calling" than politics does not to require her to believe that motherhood is her only option.  Anyway I obviously didn't mean "motherhood," simpliciter -- we all realize Palin is and has been a mother for the last 18 years or so.  What I was pointing out is only that full-time motherhood is an example of a higher calling, as viewed by persons in Palin's cultural and religious circles, particularly for a woman who has recently given birth to a baby with special needs.  I have a greatnephew, now 3, with Down's Syndrome.  I know the demands that caring for him and fostering his maximum potential are putting on my nephew and niece.

    Parent
    I hope she succeeds in (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    picking a few off.

    For the record, she owes no one here or elsewhere a thing.

    The only people she represented were Alaskans, they are the only ones she was required to give any explanation to(Just because the media and the whacked out left who have imagined everything from incest down the line want to make her into a public issue doesn't make it so). Her explanation to them made absolute sense and I totally agree with her potrayal of politics. Alot of the people on the lefts behavior has been inexcusable and disgusting and a total waste of time when there are real issues that need addressing. It is totally astounding to me how so many people on this side of the spectrum look and act exactly like Coulter and Hannity(and that ain't a compliment).

    What's with the obsession? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Saul on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    I am no fan of Palin but for the life of me I cannot understand why you and Jeralyn or so obsessed writing about her.  If she is nothing then why do you keep writing about her?  On one side you say she is nothing but on the other hand you seem so afraid of her.   Let it go

    Not a chance. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    I am no more obsessed with Palin than I am with any of the other prominent right wingers who say and do bizarre things.  It happens that Palin is not only more prominent than most (she's the rising star of the GOP and recently ran for VP, remember?), she's more inclined than most to make bizarre statements.  And yes, I'm very afraid of her, and of right wingers like her, who if given the chance would replace democracy with theocracy.

    I've frequently written about other whacky conservatives, including Dick Cheney and James Dobson, and nobody objects.  Why is it so wrong to write in the same manner about Sarah Palin?

    Parent

    You have not been (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    Too many other have been.

    Parent
    Response (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    You simply do not write in the same fashion about Cheney or Dobson.

    Please consider that point.

    Beyond that, both Cheney and Dobson were more significant figures than Palin was or is.

    I think your comparisons are a negative point for your argument.

    Parent

    I would also point to the (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    difference in treatment between Mark Sanford and Palin.

    While Sanford went missing, n one speculated that he was under criminal investigation or having an affair or anything of the sort. What was written was the fact - he went missing.

    Only AFTER Sanford himself confirmed his affair (apparently it was going to be reported anyway with evidence), did the floodgates open.

    To be honest, there is no way you can possibly compare even your blogging on Palin to anything you have written about any other figure.

    On second thought, I reject your assertion TChris.

    Parent

    If Sanford had resigned (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    with a rambling speech that did not adequately explain the decision, would their be speculation as to his motives? Would that speculation include whether or not there were any potential scandals about to break?

    Sarah Palin is a difficult public figure and politican to blog about. She is a governer, former VP candidate, that pundits speculated might run for president. How far she would have gotten is a matter of debate. I don't think she would have survived the primaries, because ultimately her positions are too extreme. She is also difficult to blog about because there has been sexism in past coverage.

    All of that said, she is a public figure and is both newsworthy and blog worthy and ignoring her can be problematic as well.

    Parent

    Silly hypothetical (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    You actually make my point. The issue about Sanford is why HASN'T he resigned?

    You write "a rambling speech that did not adequately explain the decision, would their be speculation as to his motives? Would that speculation include whether or not there were any potential scandals about to break?"

    I wonder that you think it is ok to irresponsibly speculate that someone is under criminal investigation because you think their speech does not "adequately explain" their actions.

    Why not wait to see if there are any facts to back such a charge?

    This is the double standard I abhor,

    I know you would never argue this way if it were a pol you liked.

    Parent

    I wasn't trying to make yours or Chris' points (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    I was pointing out the obvious. Polticians in this country have been subject to speculation, irresponsible and otherwise pretty much from the beginnig. Whether we like it or not, politics is both personality and policy. There is no question the tabloidization of news in the past 20 years has made us all worse off, but the politics of personality is not a recent phenomena.

    Are you wondering whether I think it is ok or are you "in wonder" (as in amazement) that I think it ok?

    If the former, I don't think irresponsible speculation is ok.  If the latter, how did you jump to the conclusion that I think it ok? I merely was asking would it happen.  That is neither a blessing nor a condemnation, but an acknowledgement of the way things are. Palin should be treated no better or worse than other politicians. There is no question that on occasions she has been treated worse than other poltiicans. That doesn't get her a free pass. To the extent you argue she needs to be treated objectively and equally, I agree with you. I don't think many politicians would get a pass after giving that performance.

    One doesn't have to speculate as to why she decided to abruptly resign to think that the manner in which she did so has likely precluded a run for the presidency in the near future. I found the speech to incoherent and and I did not hear a good reason to quit office halfway through tenure. This would be true regardless of who made the speech. Even if I liked her poltics, the speech would make me question voting for her for another office. I liked John Edwards' poltics, but as events have unfolded, I would never vote for him should he desire to run again. HIs judgment is clearly questionable regardless of his politics.

    Parent

    I wonder that some (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    will try to pretend it is ok when it is someone they do not like but NOT ok when it is some they like.

    Me,  think it is NOT OK no matter who it is directed at.

    Parent

    Not much danger of ignoring her, (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    at least here.

    Parent
    Not just here. (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:52:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I respectfully disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    I write about Palin in exactly the way I write about other right wing figures who make idiotic statements that are antithetical to progressive values.

    I agree that Cheney is a more significant figure than Palin, given that he was VP while Palin only ran for VP.  I disagree that Dobson is a more significant figure than the GOP's nominee for the VP position.  So feel free to replace Cheney's name with Tancredo or Huckabee or other right wingers of that ilk.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    Your writings are there for all to read.

    No where else to go with this discussion.

    Parent

    Then READ THEM, BTD. (none / 0) (#97)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    See comment 95 above.

    Parent
    I did (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    They seemed classic "Palin is stupid" posts to me.

    Not REPUBLICANS are stupid (Palin held and probably holds conventional GOP views). Palin is stupid.

    I always had a problem with that approach. And still do.

    Parent

    Becasue (none / 0) (#23)
    by Saul on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    Because by writing about her you give her more publicity, and legitimacy that she does not deserve.  The more she is in the news or blogs is exactly what she wants in order to show all how she is the victim.  The worst thing you can do to her is to do nothing. Let it go.

    Parent
    By that reasoning (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    I should ignore Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee and Joe the Plumber and Justice Scalia and Sean Hannity and John Yoo and every other right winger who advocates positions that I find repulsive.  Not gonna happen.

    Parent
    You discuss them (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    And the positions.

    You have never written about Palin's actual positions.

    Parent

    You are SO wrong. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    See comment 95 above.

    Parent
    I read them (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    Classic "Palin is stupid" posts by my reading.

    Parent
    There is zero indication (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    she wants to "replace democracy with theocracy."

    See, this is the whole point.  Some folks for reasons I don't entirely understand, although it's clearly partly sexism, have gone absolutely ballistic and invented an extreme caricature for someone who's a perfectly ordinary third-rate right-wing politician whose views on social issues are, in fact, nowhere near as extreme as many sitting senators and governors right now.

    But yet she's been made into this gigantic mega-monster.  It's a little nuts.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:51:14 PM EST
    Not arguing that there are some in congress that are religious nut cases, but I disagree with your opinion of Palin. She sure appears to be a theocrat to me. That is part of why she was put on the ticket.

    Did you also think that Roberts was a moderate, rather than a judicial activist?

    Parent

    Sexism? Zero indication? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:28:25 PM EST
    Sarah Palin on the war in Iraq:

    "Our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," Palin says. "There is a plan and that is God's plan."

    In Palin's world, God's plan extended beyond waging war in Iraq.

    Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

    Sounds theocratic to me. Sounds theocratic to Professor Cohn at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, as well:

    Palin is a radical, right-wing, fundamentalist Christian who would love to create a theocracy. She believes we are living in the "end times" which will result in a bloody inferno from which only true Christians will be saved. ...  Palin has pushed for creationism to be taught in schools, and she opposes stem cell research. ...  Palin would deny a woman victimized by rape or incest the right to choose abortion, and then criminally punish both the woman for having one and her doctor for performing it.

    Advocating government policies that advance narrow-minded religious beliefs is awfully strong evidence of a desire for theocracy.  See also Frederick Clarkson and Miriam Leitao and this post.

    Zero indication?  Don't think so.

    Finally, accusing me of sexism because one of the many public figures I've criticized at TalkLeft happens to be a woman is lame.  Was I being sexist when I quoted Harry Knox saying this about Tom DeLay and James Dobson?

    "There is always a great sadness whenever faith leaders call for a theocracy," Knox said during a telephone interview. "They want to impose their particular brand of religion on the country."

    Was I being sexist when I criticized Tony Perkins' advocacy of a religious test for public office?  Was my post praising the essay "Jesus Was Not a Republican" sexist?

    My consistent writings about the danger of theocracy have never been based on the gender of the theocrat.  Yet I'm accused of sexism when, instead of warning about male Republicans and conservatives who want to assure that the United States is a "Christian nation," I make the same charge against Sarah Palin.

    Your charge of sexism is offensive nonsense.  My posts focus on Palin's statements and actions, not on her gender. It's easier to throw around baseless charges of sexism than it is to defend Palin's dangerous right wing thinking.  But why would you want to defend it?

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    THIS is what is objectionable about Palin and almost every Republican.

    Parent
    No time to (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:58:41 PM EST
    go through your whole litany point by point, but a good deal of it has been rebutted long ago.  Just for starters, look up the video of her speech with the "task that's from God" quote in it.  It was posted early on, so really no excuse for not knowing about it if you're going to post on the subject.  The accusation that you made was common early on in the campaign and then thoroughly and utterly rebutted.

    Don't want to bother looking it up?  OK.  The quotation you got from wherever you got it (could be anywhere because it was widely cited) has deliberately been truncated.  What she said is, "Let us pray that (yada, yada, yada) our leaders are sending them on a task that's from God."

    Don't believe me?  Then look it up for yourself.

    I don't think you are deliberately sexist, but I think you have, shall we say, "issues" like many men and women and you are, like so many, excessively eager to believe the ugliest things you see about Palin, as above, rather than looking into it for yourself.

    And lastly, believing in a living God who provides good guidance on all things, as many, many, many in this country do, including, apparently, Obama, is not theocracy, and you ought to know that, too.

    I'm in 100 percent agreement with BTD on this subject, I think.  The ferocity of the attacks on Palin, yours included, is utterly out of proportion to who she is or to her significance.  It's also largely based on falsity.

    I'll say it again.  It is totally unnecessary to make her into the monster you and others have insisted on making her in order to oppose her.  The question remains why you and so many others have found it emotionally necessary to do that.

    I see little difference between this and the Kossian/TPM/Etc. treatment of Hillary.

    Parent

    Again, (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TChris on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:16:03 AM EST
    I wonder why you have this desperate need to defend Palin's right wing rhetoric.  Do you also defend Dobson and Perkins and DeLay and other Christian conservatives when they advocate policies that conform to their narrow-minded notions of what a "Christian nation" should be?

    You needn't encourage me to "look up" the video of Palin's remarks about God; it's in the very first link to my comment 148.  Palin asked congregants to pray that our leaders are sending our soldiers "out on a task that is from God." Do we want our leaders to hope or believe that the war in Iraq is "a task from God?"  I don't.  Palin's positions transcend a belief in a living God who offers good guidance.  Palin wants her own right wing notions of "God's will" to dictate law and policy.

    Of course you don't want to go through my comment "point by point."  If you did, you'd have to justify Palin's statement that "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."  You'd have to justify Palin's belief that creationism should be taught in schools, her opposition to stem cell research, and her insistence that abortion should be illegal even if rape and incest victims would be forced to bear the children of the men who violated them.  You ignore those examples of Palin's desire to impose her religious values on the rest of us with the unsubstantiated claim that "a good deal of it has been rebutted long ago."  Really?  Her theocratic tendencies are well documented, as are her "rigid, anti-woman politics." Where's your evidence to the contrary?

    As you can see, I have looked into Palin's positions myself.  Have you?  If so, how can you conceivably defend her positions?

    My posts about Palin are no more "ferocious" than my posts about male conservatives who take similar positions.  I don't think you are deliberately sexist, but I haven't noticed you complaining about criticism directed at male political candidates who advocate theocratic and anti-woman positions.

    The notion that my Palin posts are "utterly out of proportion to who she is or to her significance" is absurd, given that she was the GOP's freaking VP candidate!  That seems to me to make her an incredibly significant political figure.  I'm not going to ignore her or soft-pedal my criticism of her simply because of her gender.  I don't find it "emotionally necessary" to "make her into a monster" any more than I found it "emotionally necessary" to direct harsh criticism toward Bill Frist and Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay and other conservative extremists.

    Finally, I would be astonished that you dragged Hillary into this discussion, which has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary, if it were not so predictable. Your position seems to be "Hillary was subjected to sexist criticism therefore any criticism of a female politician is sexist."   How Hillary was treated by other bloggers is utterly irrelevant to the legitimate criticism of Sarah Palin that Jeralyn and I have expressed.

    Parent

    I'm with you TChris (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:10:53 AM EST
    And I hope you keep writing about her when you have something to say.

    Parent
    I haven't wrtten about her in months (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:09:57 AM EST
    She chose to give a news conference, she's news. I write about what's in the news.

    She's unqualified for national office and considering another run at it. I will do my part to make sure she doesn't succeed.

    Parent

    If Palin is painting herself as a victim, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    the constant attention and picking at everything she or someone on her team does is just reinforcing that role - to her advantage.

    [and can I just say that anyone who isn't watching Federer-Roddick at Wimbledon is missing one hell of a match? They're heading into the 28th game of the final set.  Yes, the 28th game]

    Well, I hope she does (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    As I said re Plame's legal action, I'd like to see all involved on the stand subject to perjury charges. Perhaps we will learn more than the Left side of the aisle wants us to know. Perhaps not. But I am tired of these unfounded attacks. In case you haven't noticed we are in over our heads and the plan to save us has turned into CA IOU's.

    Yes but what I really want to know (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    is what subliminal message Sarah Palin is sending me by painting her toenails and wearing heels?

    ;)

    It is astounding we have millions without healthcare, a 9.5 % unemployment rate, record foreclosures, an economy contracting, and Sarah Palin is THE national issue that the left wants has a laserlike focus on. Kind of reminds of the days when the GOP felt steroids in sports were the BIG issue we needed to attack(that and flag burning).

    Wake me up when one of the sides is ready to attack real problems rather than people.

    Parent

    Your comments always did make (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    a lot of sense. You and a few others make me miss the old DKos.

    Politicians of both parties must love the media's (including the blogs) dedication to distractions like this. Certainly with so much around the clock coverage devoted of this type of crap, it definitely take the heat off of them and how poorly they are performing on real issues.

    Parent

    I saw a headline stating conservative (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    Democratic congresspersons are telling Sibelius they won't vote for health care reform including funding for abortion.  Now that is worth blogging about, IMO.

    Parent
    Those particular Dem Representatives (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    probably wouldn't vote for anything that vaguely represented REAL healthCARE reform with or without funding for abortion.

    This is just one of the issues that gets underreported because the media decided they would rather be scandal sheets than devote their efforts to actually reporting on issues.

    Parent

    They sent a letter to Pelosi also (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    we lose . . .

    Parent
    We agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    As I said re Plame's legal action, I'd like to see all involved on the stand subject to perjury charges.

    Word.  Too bad it didn't happen.

    Parent

    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    "she has only herself to blame for speculation about her motive for resigning."

    Irresponsible speculation is the fault of those who irresponsibly speculate.

    Left blogs in particular heaped disgrace on themselves these past few days.

    Perhaps you will somewhat redeem them (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    by posting today?  Hope so.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    I may not post until the Sotomayor hearings.

    I have a busy schedule ahead of me.

    Parent

    Tis a pity, as Greenwald is fixated on (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    the NPR and the use of the word "torture" by the media.

    Parent
    I give you Peggy Noonan (none / 0) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    Although I understand you don't value her opinion, but this is for the right-wingers who do.

    "Was Mr. Clinton being blackmailed? ... Maybe it was Mr. Castro's intelligence service, or that of a Castro friend.

    "Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to."

    Parent

    Anyone who want to hold (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    Peggy Noonan as a role model will not receive respect from me.

    To compare the Left blogs to Noonan is precisely my point. I want to be better than that.

    Parent

    Of course. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    I could have sworn that I put in a disclaimer that I understood you don't value her opinion, nor do I, and that the (implied) purpose of posting her comment was to deflate right-wing IOKIYAR hypocrisy.

    Did you miss that?

    Parent

    What of left wing hypocrisy? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    I think that is what we have seen here quite frankly.

    Parent
    You are entitled to address that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    Anyone who values Peggy Noonan's opinion isn't.

    Which was my point.

    Parent

    I speak for me only (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    with every word I write here.

    that has always been the case.

    Parent

    TChris and I disagree (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:11:43 AM EST
    with you.

    Parent
    What They Are Saying in Alaska (4.00 / 1) (#158)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    which ultimately is all that really matters
    (Admittedly I have cherrypicked the worst line from each editorial but Wasilla is the only one that leans positive)

    The Governor seems to have lost interest in the job and is doing the state a favor by quitting now.
     --The Fairbanks Newsminer

    Regardless of the real reasons for Palin's resignation, Alaska will be far better off without her.
    --The Juneau Empire

    Palin doesn't want to be a lame duck, but comes off lame quitting her job.
    --The Anchorage Daily News

    If she is indeed thinking of another office, she'll have a lot of hearts to mend by not finishing the job she had.
    --The Wasilla Mat-Su Valley Fontiersman

    The Fairbanks Newsminer (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:25:29 PM EST
    seems to have said it best. "seems to have lost interest in the job" captures the frivolous nature of her easy abandonment of her post.  

    Parent
    I only hope we're (none / 0) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    not looking at another Republican "called by god" to be president. Geez, that other one worked out so well.

    According to Pelosi (during the primaries) (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    our current one is a gift from G*d . .   ;)

    Parent
    One who IIRC according to his (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    brochure was chosen to serve.

    Parent
    Hey, GWB got repeated standing (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    ovations in Oklahoma just yesterday!

    Parent
    Excellent news! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    Will he be taking any questions on torture?  I have a few.

    Parent
    Oh, c'mon ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    it's Oklahoma. This is a state with a US Senator who called for the death penalty for abortion doctors and a state legislature where a resolution was recently introduced blaming the current economic mess on moral turpitude.

    Bizarra Sarah (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    Everyone's been saying how bizarre she's been.  Her new name should be

    Bizarra Sarah

    She's no different than Bruno in trying to get media attention.  

    FWIW (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), whose Senate term expires in 2010, may have had a possible Senate run by Palin in mind when she slammed the Alaska governor in the press on Friday, saying that she was "deeply disappointed that the governor has decided to abandon the state and her constituents before her term has concluded."

    Those are tough words coming from a political ally of Palin's, and they highlight a growing divide inside the GOP over Palin's shock resignation Friday.

    In contrast to Murkowski's reaction, Sen. John McCain -- whose staffers and friends were quoted in the media this week criticizing Palin's performance on McCain's presidential ticket last year -- had positive things to say about Palin after her resignation, saying that he expected her to play "an important leadership role in the Republican party and our nation," according to the Hill.

    raw story

    To call Murkowski and Palin (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    political ally is to blatantly lie.

    Palin defeated Murkowski's father in a Republican primary when she became Governor.

    The Murkowskis HATE Palin.

    Parent

    Makes Sense (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    Especially from this line:

    ...the governor has decided to abandon the state and her constituents...

    Not a ally type of thing to say.

    Parent

    As resignations go ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    I find Justine Bateman's resignation from the SAG board far more interesting:

    Details here.

    Late in the previous thread... (none / 0) (#93)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    ...I posted a request for information about any web sites or blogs that discuss issues dealing with slander defamation, etc. in the new media universe.  I'm still hoping to locate that sort of information - I'm not sure how long that aspect of the internet frontier will be able to remain quite as as untamed as it currently seems to be.

    Here's a link to my previous post/request.

    Thanks.

    I guess (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by TChris on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    you could start with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  It's not limited to defamation issues, but it covers the "untamed" internet frontier quite well.

    And yes, the standard for proving defamation against a public figure (which by definition includes people who hold political office) includes proof of actual malice.  Whether the defendant is a newspaper columnist or a blogger wouldn't seem to make a difference, although I can't say that I've specifically researched that question.  Actual malice is very difficult to prove, and simple speculation about a politician's motive for resigning isn't going to meet that standard.

    Parent

    a better defense (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:20:36 PM EST
    is opinion, rather than the issue of actual malice.

    Proving "actual malice" of someone's political opponents would not be as difficult to prove imo.  Now, for example, if a news organization were to continue to report that Palin may be under FBI investigation after the FBI's express denial would be a classic case of "reckless disregard for the truth."

    But of course what we are really talking about is standards and responsibility.

    The speculation of a criminal investigation was utterly irresponsible. Whether by Traditional Media or bloggers. Actionable? No. Irresponsible? Absolutely.

     

    Parent

    As long as the news media ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    can find someone willing to speculate, they will report the speculation.

    Parent
    That does not work (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    as a defense actually. you can not quote somebody saying something you know is false.

    Parent
    Oh, but you know that the ... (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    press can walk that line with a few qualifying statements.

    They do it all the time.

    But I always understood Times v. Sullivan allowed some wiggle room for false assertions.  As Brennan says here:

    A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions - and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount - leads to a comparable "self-censorship." Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred.


    Parent
    Non lawyer here, (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    but it seems Palin is on awfully thin-skinned ice here.  Good luck with any lawsuit.  Because she'd have to prove that the defendant(s) acted to deliberately misrepresent the truth or in reckless disregard of the truth (the layman's definition of "actual malice").  

    Further, the discovery process is not only lengthy but can explore into any area which is deemed "relevant", and the definition for relevant is basically interpreted extremely broadly.  So, a plaintiff has to be cautious in pursuing this stuff lest some other embarrassing skeletons, loosely related, come to light.

    Someone can correct me, but I also believe that while there's a general hard-to-win category for public figures, the large subcategory of public political figures is even less likely to prevail in court, owing to how the courts give even wider latitude to assertions or speculations made in the political "marketplace of ideas", however unpopular or unseemly.   The very thing our 1st Am was principally designed to protect.

    Parent

    Defamation and Actual Malice (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Michael Masinter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    There are several first amendment issues posed by defamation.  First, the first amendment only permits liability for false statements of fact as distinct from opinions; the latter cannot be defamatory.  Second, a public figure must prove a false statement of fact on a matter of public concern was made with actual malice.  Actual malice is a somewhat misleading term; as defined by the Supreme Court it means a false statement of fact made either with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.  

    Proof of knowledge of falsity is rare; proof of reckless disregard is only slightly more common because in both cases the public figure defamation plaintiff must prove her case by clear and convincing evidence, and the factual findings are subject to plenary rather than deferential appellate review.

    Governor Palin likely would have a hard time proving a case under either standard; beyond that, were she to sue for defamation based on some of the statements that were published in the wake of her announcement, she would expose to discovery aspects of her public life that, by reason of the passage of time, cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution but that, speaking hypothetically since I know nothing of such conduct, she might prefer to leave unexposed.  As to the danger for public figures  of discovery in a civil case, see generally Jones v. Clinton.

    Parent

    If she limited her claim (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    to allegations of an FBI investigation into alleged criminal acts on her part, she could limit the scope of discovery on liability.

    there was an intereswting case in New york where Woody allen sued on a right of publicity claim and the defendant wanted to call Mia Farrow and Soon Yi and others about Allen's reputation.

    The request was not ruled on as the case settled but it seems to me that Allen would have had a hard time keeping it out.

    Palin;s situation would be different in that she would be alleging liber per se - claim of criminality. Damages are calculated differently on a per se claim.

    Parent

    Criminal Acts vs Investigation (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Michael Masinter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    If I understand what has been published, the asserted false statements are that she is under investigation, not that she committed a criminal act.  The former is not defamation per se; the latter is.

     

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    That fine distinction would not fly imo.

    Do you have a case cite that makes that distinction?

    Parent

    There are tons of ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    lawyers here.  Don't know why they haven't answered.

    As I understand it, because of Times v. Sullivan a public figure must prove malice in order to win a defamation suit.  Malice is quite hard to prove.


    Parent

    One reason may be (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:13:13 AM EST
    that two of us, TChris and I, don't do civil litigation. We're criminal defense lawyers.

    Parent
    Palin For President Website (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    Here, in case any  fans want to send donations...

    Different Plans (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:45:40 PM EST
    Van Flein [Palin's Attorney] also denied rumors that she's leaving office for the money she could make on, say, a speaking tour. She has different plans, he said.

    "She's taking the battle on a different battlefield...She's gonna help conservative candidates that she supports for the 2010 elections," he said.

    David Kurtz (TPM)

    Pity Poor Palin ... The 'Victim' Threatens to Sue | 167 comments (167 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment