What??????
Sarah Palin just resigned as governor of Alaska.
I would say something but I’m too busy sitting here with my mouth open.
Holy shit. I guess we will have another woman running for President.
UPDATE: here’s a link from Reuters with her remarks at the press conference.
UPDATE #2: Video and transcript:
Transcript after the jump.
Full remarks at her website. Here’s the bit with her reasoning:
Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year - the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate - I say others changed.
Let me speak to that for a minute.
Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.
Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” - that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples’ money in their game.
It’s pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.
If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!
And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!
Life is too short to compromise time and resources… it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.
Nah, only dead fish “go with the flow”.
No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time… to BUILD UP.
And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE… I’ll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won’t deride them.
I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.
But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.
I’ve never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference… to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more “freedom” to progress, all the way around… so that Alaska may progress… I will not seek re-election as Governor.
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that’s what’s wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.
It’s not what is best for Alaska.
I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.
With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration - with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future - can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.
My choice is to take a stand and effect change - not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities - and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.
Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball - for victory.
I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in - in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.
I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision - but it’s no more “politics as usual”.
Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…
In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?” It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it - and someday I’ll talk about the details of that… I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more… what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious… the world needs more “Trigs”, not fewer.
My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF… and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions - those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.
May we ALL learn from them!
*((Gotta put First Things First))*
First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”
But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right - for Alaska - in a new direction.
Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August… no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.
We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!
Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It’ll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.
And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.
In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
140 Responses to “What??????”
-
bluelyon says:
Seriously? Off to google this.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm EST -
TheOtherDelphyne says:
I just googled it and wow - she has resigned. Unbelievable.
-
Jackie says:
Resigning before a holiday weekend. Sounds like a scandals breaking if you ask me.
-
Jamie W. says:
My take exactly, Dr. Socks. We have NEVER seen a politician like Sarah Palin.
I’m sure you don’t watch Fox a lot — her brother called in and said she was spending as much as 80% of her governing time defending herself against all these bogus ethics complaints and media attacks — effectively, she was paralyzed as a governor. She just changed the rules!
-
Chevalier says:
there’s no chance she’s running for senate or something, is there?
really sounds like a massive scandal’s about to break.
-
Violet says:
I really don’t know. The first blips I saw made the connection with her running for President in 2012. That’s the assumption. But who really knows? I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough.
-
datechguy says:
I couldn’t be more surprised if I tired.
-
Jamie W. says:
If there was a scandal anywhere around there, don’t you think the media would have sniffed it out? No, this is Sarah redefining the rules.
She cleared out all the ethics violations first, waited til after the Jackson thing cleared the national scene a little, and deliberately did this on the day before the 4th because she is going to consume the news on one of the most important days of the year to conservatives. This is all conservatives will be talking about tomorrow, trust me!
In addition, she was guaranteed to be completely ineffective for the next year and a half til her term was legally over, because the media and frivolous ethics complainers aren’t going to stop. They’ve demonstrated this.
So what were her choices? 1) Remain in an office where she won’t get any work done for Alaska or for herself while her professional and personal time was consumed fighting off reputation-damaging attacks (however frivolous or false), or 2) changing the rules, clearing herself of responsibilities she was going to be unable to fulfill (which would have given the media even more ammo), and allowing her to use the money SarahPac is very effectively raising to defend herself and campaign however she wants.
She’s a smart cookie, is Sarah. She removed her family from the target area and completely freed herself to do whatever she sees necessary to make herself into a very powerful national candidate. If you look at it carefully, she just cut a Gordian knot.
If she played basketball this unpredictably and aggressively, no wonder they called her Barracuda!
-
Sameol says:
Oh that sucks. Even if there’s no scandal, I think not holding an office would kill her chances at the nomination. Yes, Romney, I know, but he’ll be held to a much lower standard.
-
Palin Resigns My jaw is on the floor. « DaTechguy’s Blog says:
[...] of speculation and shock. She’s resigning to run for president, She’s resigning because of scandal, she is resigning because she can’t take it, etc [...]
-
Julia says:
I don’t think that Sarah Palin meant anything other than what she said or what her brother said. I think she has been paraylzed as a governer and the state of Alaska does deserve a governer that can govern. She can’t do that if she is having to spend her time defending herself and her children.
-
Sameol says:
And the media narrative here is obvious, flighty female, let down the people who elected her, can’t handle pressure, if she were President one bit of adversity would send her bailing. They’re going to crucify her.
-
Jamie W. says:
Don’t assume she’s going to run for president in 2012. I think she’s setting herself up to be the most attractive vice presidential candidate ever — and then use that later to move into president, once she has the necessary experience. Several veeps have come from private sector, instead of national or regional politics. She just needs to demonstrate that she is savvy enough for the job. Remember, she’s really young, too, and has plenty of time yet to achieve what she wants.
-
Kat says:
Absolutely they’ll crucify her, but they were going to crucify her anyway.
Particularly as the ship of the Obama cult goes down, and the rot and hypocrisy is revealed with each passing day, mob lynchings of The Enemy are very, very important. Sarah Palin is the enemy, the cultists and their media lackeys require their 2 minutes of hate to function, and whether she’s in office, out of office, running for president, hanging out in Wasila, or on Mars, they’ll crucify her. Because they have nothing else.
-
Violet says:
I think her reasoning is pretty good:
I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor.
-
Sis says:
Breathtaking in her ability to control the play. She just proved herself far superior to anyone else on the scene, Republican or Democrat.
-
Besom says:
I’m very sorry to see her go. I can only hope she’ll come back with a vengeance. She strikes me as a very smart person and I really, really hope this is just a strategy to allow herself time to plan her comeback.
-
Violet says:
I really don’t think she’s going anywhere.
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
Life is about choice?
If only . . .
-
Sis says:
But don’t they all look like toddlers compared to her. Damn. She’s left them dribbling in more ways than one.
I suspect it will be something fo women and/or children (as she defines ‘for’).
-
Chevalier says:
Sorry to have come off as a concern troll…I do support her - she’s an admirable woman - but I’m not so sure about what/why she’s doing what she’s doing, and if she’s got her timing entirely right.
With the Letterman thing she’d just won a big public battle of image; she was convincing, smart, cutting and managed to complain effectively without coming off as a victim.
Now this seems so drastically opposite to what that was. Hope she has good political advisors telling her what to do…
-
Marcy says:
This is probably naive, but I hope she doesn’t have political advisers telling her what to do. They not only did a disservice to her during the McCain candidacy, it appears they are never going to stop trashing her to the media. It would be refreshing for a candidate to make her own decisions based on her honest beliefs. Maybe it’ll catch on.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Sorry to have come off as a concern troll…
Eh, hopefully non-slanderous criticism of Palin doesn’t count as trolling here, otherwise I’m in the wrong place.
My first thought was “Her family was tired of the constant shit storm and talked her into quitting for their sake”, my second was “another huge Republican scandal?”
The presidency idea didn’t cross my mind until I saw other people suggesting it all over the blogosphere.
I don’t think this is the prelude for a presidential bid; if it is, it’s a *stupid* one, for the reasons Chevalier just mentioned, and more importantly what Sameol said in comment 12.
Whatever her reason, I really wish she hadn’t done it.
Keeping in mind this comes from someone who does not and would not ever (barring *vast* changes in her stated policies) support a Palin bid for presidency, I still respect a number of things about her as a person and politician, and more important, I really *loathe* the sort of attacks directed at her. If she walks away from politics under these terms, it lets all the attackers get to say “we won!” . Much as I don’t support most of her policies, I don’t like seeing the smear mongers run around happily thinking this somehow vindicates them. And if she does run again, it gives them a new ” can’t take the heat” arrow to fire at her. From a public figure standpoint, bad decision for her all round.
From a personal life standpoint, maybe it’s a good one. I don’t think she’d ever have won, anyway — she’ll get hit with as much as Hillary did and I simply don’t think she’s as capable as Hillary was (no offense intended there; I don’t think anyone else in politics for the 33 years I’ve been paying attention could handle what Hillary did last time and make a long term fight of it; one reason I went from a fence-sitter in the primaries to a passionate Hillary supporter was watching her actually get better under an onslaught of lies that would have buried anyone else). So if she and her family are happier moving to the private sector, and just don’t want to deal with the never ending rain of vitriol (and who could blame them? our political press in this country is deeply sick) more power to them.
-
Sis says:
Oh she has a Twitter. She says stay tuned. Anyone going to follow it?
-
Amy K. says:
I don’t think this is a political calculation. For her to have gotten as far as she has as young as she is with little help from her party, actually bucking her party when it comes to fighting corruption, it shows that she has an innate talent for politics.
This move does not put her in a good political position. To resign from her governership because she has been been hamstrung by her political foes denotes weakness. Even if she wanted to run for president, she would need to finish out her term as governor. Anything else says “quitter.”
I think this is a personal decision. Either she has decided enough is enough and all the idiots tormening her can go piss up a rope, or something has happened in her family that she wants to deal with out of the public eye as best she can.
-
SarahG says:
I think whether it’s perceived as strong or weak will depend ultimately on what she does next.
-
Alex Curylo says:
“To resign from her governership because she has been been hamstrung by her political foes denotes weakness.”
And what, pray tell, do *you* think would be a strong way to deal with a quite clearly orchestrated strategy of frivolous ethics complaints to keep the hate at full boil and sap her time from any productive pursuits?
No, taking that whole line of attack out of the game now is the strongest move possible no matter what it is she actually has in mind.
I rather presume that the point is to campaign for Republicans on the national level to build the network one needs for a successful nomination, which would be pretty much impossible to do whilst remaining Governor as the press coverage of her very few post-election trips to date demonstrates quite convincingly, but I’m quite willing to be surprised. Rather looking forward to how she handles herself without the John Ker^H^H^H McCain handlers making a royal botch of things, actually.
And looking forward just as much to the Hillary primary challenge to Obama that sure seems to be in the works. Oh my, this next election cycle will be *so* entertaining…
-
Amy K. says:
And what, pray tell, do *you* think would be a strong way to deal with a quite clearly orchestrated strategy of frivolous ethics complaints to keep the hate at full boil and sap her time from any productive pursuits?
I’m apolitical, though personally conservative. I’m not arguing with what you say. These people are seriously nasty and vindictive and I wouldn’t want to be friends with any of them. They’re toxic people I would never invite into my home, although I’m sure they consider themselves liberal and tolerant and would consider my noninvite of them evidence of my evil conservative personality. But it is what it is. I’m not saying it’s the wrong decision, just that it denotes weakness.
-
Sameol says:
Mojave Wolf, I’m not sure I agree. I think ‘08 might have been the last hurrah of media driven sleaze politics. They shot their wad by putting everything behind fluffing Obama and demonizing Clinton and Palin, and it didn’t work, Obama lost the primary and just barely won the general. If not for the economic collapse, he may well have lost. The voters simply tuned out the media narrative, and I really think that going to this well again by the political classes will backfire.
-
angienc says:
HuffPo had a post up today titled “Palin will run in ‘12 on more retardation.” (Huffpo has thankfully pulled it). The MRA Erik Nelson posited that Palin was “hiding behind her children” (Trig of course has “down syndrome” which I guess nowadays = “retardation.” In my day we were taught that was a bad word. C’est la vie).
IMO, this is a personal decision & Palin doesn’t care about a future in politics (at least right now). She is, as Amy K put it, telling these morons to piss up a rope. She isn’t getting any work done as Governor because of all the bogus ethic complaints & vile people like Erik Nelson & this was the only way to neutralize them. Her sanity & the safety of her children are obviously more important to her than political office. Others choices may have been different, but good on her for having the courage to make hers. I’m sure she will be fine.
-
Jamie W. says:
Here’s a link to the Something Awful/Wonkette attack on baby Trig, by the way, in case anyone didn’t know what Sarah was referencing when she said something about the attack on Trig. There are no words.
http://legalinsurrection.blogs.....again.html
They don’t seem to understand that Trig might see this someday, and there are other Down babies (and their mothers) out there who will as well.
-
Lori says:
I wrote her a letter this week and told her she needed a tv show. I said thought that if she really wanted to run for the presidency, that she needed to spend a lot of time on tv talking issues with other women. That would be the draw - Sarah talking straightforwardly to women politicians of all parties. Prove she knows the issues and that she has more depth than she is portrayed as having.
Obama is the key here. and Bush, for that fact. We don’t care if our pols have experience. We care how they make us feel - especially male voters. Male voters are entirely incapable of voting in their rational best interest.
I’m betting she’s off to start carving our her credentials as a national figure. She has to prove that she can think and talk. She needs live tv to do that.
We’ll see. But I’m betting something similar to I what I was suggesting is behind this. It makes sense at this point in her career.
-
Sis says:
They’ve done this before. To feminist bloggers. They understand alright. The point of it is to do something awful.
-
angienc says:
BTW — I’m already sick of the “quitter” meme that is zooming around the blogosphere. Um, who among us would put up with 1/2 the utterly vile b.s. that she went through from porn videos, being hung an effigy, Palin is a C*nt t-shirts, $500k defending bogus “ethics complaints,” “Todd fathered Bristol’s baby” “Bristol gave birth to Trig” “hardee har har lets rape her daughters” and all the ridicule of her down’s syndrome son? And lets not forget — it wasn’t just the alleged “progressives” either, that hit piece in VF had her Republican campaign manager (now working with Romney) as its “source.” Why can’t people attack her policies? Oh yeah, because she enjoyed great bipartisan support in her state & is not the “right wing nut” the msm portrays her to be. They can’t attack her on her actual deeds, so they smear her and (worse) her family in the most vicious disgusting ways possible. Quitter my a$$ — I’m surprised she stayed as long as she did & I’m very glad she is telling them all to f*ck off now.
-
Violet says:
I really don’t think she’s retiring from politics. I didn’t parse her speech that way at all. I think it was loaded with implications that she would be pursuing something else — maybe president, maybe something else.
Her reasoning is logical. If remaining governor means spending 90% of her time just fighting smears, then how is it good for her or the state to remain in office?
It’s funny, but the same people who are now calling Palin a quitter and a nut are many of the same people who believed Bill Clinton should resign rather than serve out a lame duck presidency beseiged by an endless smear campaign. “He can’t be effective, so he should just quit” they said.
-
angienc says:
I had forgotten about the “Clinton the lame duck should quit” meme. Thank you Violet for reminding me. You always know what’s up.
-
Gender2010 says:
I think she is going to run for something big (not the senate because she would be running against a republican.) This is far bigger. She said today she has her eye on the basket and she would campaign for candidates regardless of political party!!
This was a strategic and aggressive move.I loved her basketball analogy:
“Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can win. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory. ”
And this tells me a lot:
“Some will question the timing. Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…
In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from outside the Governor’s office?”
And this blew me away:
“I will support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the right reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.” -
octogalore says:
Thanks for a fair portrayal. The “feminist” blog that I just departed from termed this decision “fishy” and “obfuscating” (someone knew how to use thesaurus.com), with the implication that it wasn’t “honorable.”
Um, anyone remember a certain brand new Senator promising in 04 that he would serve out his term and not run for Prez in 08? Don’t remember anyone claiming that wasn’t “honorable.” Nor did Palin phone in her job while out writing bestsellers. ‘Course when the boys do that, it’s “honorable.”
And slightly OT, if Palin ever were President, and ever had a S.Ct. pick, I bet we’d know a couple months afterwards whether that person was pro choice. After all the Dem senators have questioned Obama’s pick (who by the way, I think highly of in many respects), we still don’t know. But nobody (present company excluded) seems to care. Double standards much?
-
octogalore says:
I am a bit confused about the various folks suggesting that announcing before a holiday weekend was an attempt to bury the news, perhaps averting a scandal. To me, there is some significance about announcing on the crest of “Independence” day.
-
Gender2010 says:
Independence day is significant. And, she will dominate the news. This is great.
-
Violet says:
I agree. And the burying it on a Friday thing doesn’t apply here; some stories can’t be buried. She knew it would be a huge story no matter when she announced it.
-
sonia says:
okay, I don’t Twitter because I’m a snob like that, but I’m going to sign up just to see her feed. I don’t know why this is so addictive. anyone?
I think it’s because she IS playing so strategically and redefining the rules. love it. I have the feeling she isn’t done, and that’s nice.
I like that she’s emerged from all the cut-down dirty fighting to make a positive and principled choice. nuff respect-
-
Gender2010 says:
I get her Twitter feed. TOday’s she had several tweet.
One of her tweets read:
AKGovSarahPalinWe’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned
-
elby says:
Octogalore, I frequent the “feminist” blog you mentioned. It astounds me how much Palin hatred has saturated that place.
Violet, thanks for offering a sanctuary amidst the internet cesspool.
-
Violet says:
Which blog are y’all talking about?
-
donna darko says:
Fifteen dismissed ethics complaints. Sounds familiar. Taxpayers spent millions and found nothing on the Clintons. I think she’s quitting for personal reasons. The sexism and harrassment. The other day, all Andrew Sullivan posted on and he posts a lot was on Palin and Iran. The fact the netroots supports this guy who demonized Clinton and Palin, congratulated himself for supporting the Iraq War and was instrumental in electing Bush III who is anathema to gay rights takes away their credibility. And I think it will be Clinton vs. Palin in 2012. To get back at the boys, it won’t be a catfight because they genuinely respect each other.
-
Gender2010 says:
I htink Palin hatred by feminists is a sad thing. It is clearly projection.
I think the feminists who hate Palin really hate themselves. Sorry, that’s how I see it. They are probably the same ones who just couldn’t vote for Hillary. Oh my, just couldn’t vote for the woman who was the pro-choice feminist. How awful would that be?
-
Violet says:
And I think it will be Clinton vs. Palin in 2012. To get back at the boys, it won’t be a catfight because they genuinely respect each other.
Donna, I would dearly love to see Hillary run in 2012. But I fear she’s too loyal a Democrat to challenge the incumbent president. The only presidents in modern history who haven’t sought second terms were LBJ and Truman, and both of them were actually one-and-halfers (completing the prior president’s term). I just cannot imagine Opossum not seeking reelection.
-
Amy K. says:
I’ll tell you what I think would be interesting. If she started attending a bunch of the Tea Parties. Announced she was starting a new political party and would throw her weight and her money raising power behind anyone who would run under its principles. Get some people elected in the 2010 elections and then run someone for the 2016 Presidential election.
That’s what I think would be a good use of her political power. I wouldn’t vote for them being apolitical as I am. But it sure would be fun to watch.
-
Sis says:
I think she probably wanted to get it done with, and enjoy the holiday weekend with her family. Wouldn’t you under the circumstances? She’s probably going to have one hell of a celebration.
Women who play sports win. Yah. That was one great analogy. This is the thing they are fail on her. She’s always going to win, on strategy, not dirt.
Even for people who are pro-abortion, I think they admire her. She just cleaned up again. Wow that VF article looks even worse today than yesterday.
-
Toonces says:
Huffington Post has been an(other) arm of the Obama machine since before the primaries began. I don’t know why anyone not drowning in kool-aid/who has any sense of decency even reads anything on the site anymore. Last time I visited, they were doing an expose on Hillary’s pantsuits, IIRC.
-
Sis says:
To me, she’s such a breath of fresh air. I work on the edges of “communications”. Pass the pepto bismal. People who are always saying something but saying nothing. Blah Blah Blah. And then, Sarah Palin. Right out of the ball park.
-
octogalore says:
Violet re #45 — didn’t want to give any traffic, but since you ask: Feministing. I checked the main feminist blogs out of curiosity as to the kind of coverage this would get. Most weren’t covering it (no big surprise, as she’s barely acknowledged as female on them). Feministing, to give them credit, did eke out a post, but mostly to showcase odd fish-related analogies.
-
Violet says:
Feministing? Oh, good. I predict the rape kit smear will be re-aired before too long.
-
Violet says:
Last time I visited, they were doing an expose on Hillary’s pantsuits, IIRC.
I don’t know if you’re joking, but it made me laugh.
Speaking of Clinton-Palin derangement, can somebody get Andrew Sullivan some help? How is it that someone in his family or circle of friends and colleagues doesn’t stage an intervention?
-
Gender2010 says:
Feministing? Ugh. Every time I click on that sight, (rarely) I brace myself. I usually want to throw up. I am not sure if it’s the image of truck mud flap women or the immature content. There is nothing remotely feminist on that site.
-
Toonces says:
How is it that Andrew has an audience at all? It’s baffling.
-
Gender2010 says:
IS it CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome or PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome or just WDS, Women Derangement Syndrome?
-
myiq2xu says:
Speaking of Clinton-Palin derangement, can somebody get Andrew Sullivan some help?
Andy suffers from Vagina Envy.
-
LandOLincoln says:
My name is Janet Erwin. I’m a liberal Democrat. I’m a registered PUMA.
I stand with Sarah Palin.
-
maggie says:
Often I think we only conceptualize the world around us and the manner in which everything works through the lens of a male-centric structure. While I would never suggest knowing exactly what Governor Palin is thinking, I do believe that viewing her choice to resign through a lens driven by this patriarchal structure is incorrect.
She has taken hits from both the Democratic and Republican Party, as well as, what I would consider frivolous, lightweight journalists. Governor Palin throughout this has remained strong, fighting the 15 ethic charges and was victorious when they were dropped; she struck back at the inappropriate Letterman “joke;” along with other numerous attacks leveled at her, her family and has shown herself to be a woman of valor. My belief is that each of the attacks against her and her family comes from FEAR; fear from the patriarchal structure which is controlled by insiders and the “old boys” club. Heck Palin threats that status quote, she speaks from the heart and does not pull punches with political speak rather; such as questioning the associations Obama surrounds himself with, which were the same questions I heard from people in my life.
I would suggest that now, she is moving forward with a plan but not one that is born from the “old boys” network, rather she is moving forward with something unfamiliar to the political powers-that-be.. a different voice.
Time will tell.. for now she is a woman who has a vision and is moving forward toward whatever end goal she has in mind. I am sure in the weeks … months ahead the goal will be more obvious, for now I trust her to make decisions which are correct for her. Thinking outside the old male structure of how things work may just be what this country needs. Time will tell…
-
anne says:
She’ll have made all her opponents incredibly nervous doing this, so it can only be a good thing. They thought they had her where they wanted her and could continue administering the beatings unopposed.
I wonder if in part it was because she couldn’t stand the attacks on her children any more.
-
FLAConnie says:
Gov. Palin’s decision to resign was both surprising and bold, IMHO. My immediate reaction to why she did it, after reading Violet’s transcript of the Gov’s speech, was this was a well timed political move on her part. Coming on the eve of INDEPENDENCE DAY, and to quote Jamie W -“one of the most important days of the year to conservatives”, and all TRUE Americans, Palin’s resignation will dominate the news cycle. If her reason was to shrink from the limelight and massive media scrutiny, she would have picked another time to do this. This was timed to get the most attention possible, and help bury whatever message The Commander in Chief would be making today. Her announcement can only diminish the power of Obama’s July 4th message to America. She’s smarter than I, personally, gave her credit for.
For me, there is no doubt that she is a strong, outspoken, and savvy woman. I applaud that because I know the ramifications of being a woman who doesn’t accept her designated place in society. The misogyny directed at her is infuriating, and I have no problem defending her against those types of attacks. However, on the issues, I cannot support her for any public office, including dog catcher. If I’m going to label myself, I choose to call myself an ecofeminist. Palin’s references throughout her speech to “energy independence” is a call to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which to me is anathema. Being schooled as a scientist, her previous statements that climate change needs more study is simply bowing to corporate pressure and allowing the degradation of the planet to continue apace. Yes, abortion rights are important, but so is population control, pollution, reducing our carbon footprint, ending our over consumption of non-renewable resources, famine, the overfishing of our oceans, factory farming and accompanying pollution of our air and water, over use of pesticides and herbicides, the aerial gunning of wolves in Alaska, health care, worldwide poverty, genetic engineering of our food and the list can go on and on.
My fear is that Palin has seen that playing the misogyny card has brought many, many women to her side. We must look past this commonality and see where her political beliefs align (or not) with ours. Needless to say, this group has diverse political beliefs, which is to be expected. I don’t think that most people can be truly divided into two or three distinct political camps, even though that’s what both the media and political ideologues try to do – make everyone either liberal or conservative. I may be still incredibly naïve, but I believe that women, in general, are “other” directed (whether that is inherent or cultural or a combination of both) and see the big picture about what is best for the many as opposed to being self absorbed. I’m just saying, look both ways before jumping on the Palin bandwagon. For me, that bandwagon is not going in a direction I want to go.
-
sas says:
The best thing is that she is in TOTAL CONTROL.
SHE decides what SHE wants to do.
This is a good thing for women here and all over the world.
-
RKMK says:
The internet is full of “lol that bimbo iz taking time off to do a porno” ‘jokes’ and I already totally hate the world today.
And it’s barely after 9. >.<
-
Lori says:
I don’t think it’s CDS or PDS, I think its PODS (ironic, huh?) - Pro-Obama Derangement Syndrome. Think back to the Feministing post about how electing Obama was like Christmas and your birthday rolled into one. Palin and Clinton both put the brakes on the good time.
The people in the pro-Obama camp are participating in a narcissistic daisy chin. Supporting Obama means that your enlightened, because he is an enlightened figure and the proof of his enlightenment is that his supporters are enlightened - yes, it’s that tautological. The sanctimonious buzz the PODS are enjoying allows them to feel justified in attacking others - because they are enlightened and we’re bitter and cling to our guns and religion. Even when we are criticizing Obama from the left. Even when Obama has moved the party far to the right of everything these people have claimed that they stand for.
I’m pretty confident that Obama is a genuine narcissist and if I’m right about that, he will lose most of the PODS before the end of his first term. Narcissists are incredibly destruction - they cannot help themselves. While Obama busily transfers the middle class wealth to the upper class - an action which seems to be the raison d’etre of his presidency - he will shatter the Democratic party. We can see the cracks now, but it will get worse.
-
Tim J. says:
My fear is that Palin has seen that playing the misogyny card has brought many, many women to her side.
I don’t think you can fairly accuse Palin of playing the misogyny card, unless simply being a woman in politics counts. The misogyny came out the instant she entered the scene, without any prompting on her part.
Sadly, I’m also not convinced that it’s brought that many women to her side. It would be nice if it were true, but on the net I think she’s lost far more overall than she’s gained from it.
-
yttik says:
I think she’s made a fabulous decision. She is refusing to be controlled and manipulated. The position she is in as governor is forcing her to play defense, to do nothing more than respond to phony ethics complaints and to try and defend herself from media assaults. Now that she’s resigned she can start playing offense. She can kick some ass. She owes nobody, she has no responsibility to the taxpayers, and she is free to be her own woman.
Actually this is an ancient feminist technique. LOL, the zen of ancient feminism. Seriously an old and wise woman once taught me that when you’re engaged in a power struggle, sometimes the best way to win is to drop the rope. It’s like playing tug of war, let go of the rope and the other team will all fall on their butts.
-
soopermouse says:
i smell her making a senate run but that’s just me.
-
MojaveWolf says:
FLAConnie– agreed as to why I would never vote for Palin, and why I’m dismayed to see the amount of support her possible presidential candidacy gets from supposedly liberal camps (I quit reading New Agenda a while back for this reason). Phyllis Schlafly, Susanna Hoff Sommers, Katie Roiphe and Camille Paglia are women too, and I would oppose any of them getting elected to *any* office (not saying Palin is as awful as any of those–I don’t think she is, but she’s not Hillary or Carol Mosely Braun or Johanna Sigurdardottir, either.
In fact, given her stance on global warming and the environment, her lack of concern for the survival of polar bears as species, her support for aerial hunting of wolves (and gassing their dens?–is that true? read in a comment on Shakes; so much crap is spread about Palin I’m never sure, but I generally find Shakesville a trustworthy site), she might be as awful as Paglia, etc, just in a different way.
That she has been torn apart unfairly doesn’t bestow extra wonderfulness on her policies (I think they are probably slightly worse than Obama’s, on the whole, though what she would do in office is to some extent guesswork), or make her super-competent when she’s otherwise not– she’s gutsy and as politically and intellectually capable as most male politicians, maybe more than most, but I see absolutely no sign she has the intellectual firepower of the Clintons, and her speech that is getting praised to Heaven here was actually pretty erratic–some good parts, some ridiculous parts (plenty of people have managed to do good things during the last year of their term of office); and overall I basically agree w/Melissa’s take here: http://shakespearessister.blog.....laska.html
The one thing she did have going for her was the whole “fighter” angle, but this decision undercuts that, as well.
And for the purely practical, forget whether I like her or not viewpoint, if I’m advising her for strategy, I point to the same Clinton analogy that Violet used — Bill got hammered by *everybody* — the media, conservatives, other Democrats. But he stuck it out and his approval ratings from the general public stayed high, and until the Axelrod “more Rovian than Rove” slime machine got started, he was remembered as a brilliant fighter (sort of like his wife) and terrrific president by something over 60% of the country. Palin should have done the same thing — the American public *likes* fighters, even if the corporate media seems to hate them (unless they are fighting on behalf of large corporations, and preferably are male or fighting on behalf of men).
Yes, you can spin Palin’s move into “a great new and *better* way of fighting”, but can she make that perception stick with anyone beyond Fox News devotees? Because with the rest of the media, she has the same problem as Dennis Kucinich, who I actually like and would like to see win the presidency a hell of a lot more than I would like to see Palin win it– the MSM treats her as a joke. That’s the worst possible perception for a politician to have, and to the people not already her fans, this lets the joke be parlayed into either of two sexist stereotypes– “grasping woman who abandons constituents to seek power” or “poor little woman who can’t take the heat and surely couldn’t take the heat of presidency”. This is the perception she will get hammered with, and while she does have Fox, while Kucinich had no media outlet on his side, and has more charisma than Dennis, she would have to up her overall game quite a few notches to have a chance to overcome this even if she had the substantive policies to win over moderates.
And lastly– yttik– yes, it is like letting go of the rope in tug of war. The other side falls on their butts, but the other side also *wins* when you let go of the rope.
If she just wants out, fine, I hope she’s happy. But I think this *kills* any chance of her winning the presidency.
-
Gender2010 says:
Why are people from the lower 48 still complaining about her stance on polar bears (and wolves)?
Does it fly past their lower 48 mindset to see that judging people (and that includes indigenous people who live off Caribou) who manage their food supply in a landscape that is often hostile is about as fair as someone from Alaska judging the people of San Francisco, NY and Arizona on how they manage the problems of illegal immigration and how it impacts the public schools and hospitals? Just a question.
P.S. For the record :-) I like Fox. Greta Van Susteren said last week that she is a feminist. This is great. She reports fairly on Palin and Hillary - something that is good to see.
The only “spin” that is successful about a woman politician is spin that is accepted and absorbed by a willing public.
-
Toonces says:
MojaveWolf, ‘08 showed that women aren’t the ones who need reminders about voting on the issues.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Speaking for myself only, I care about Palin’s stance on polar bears and wolves partly because I happen to like polar bears and wolves, and partly because I think hunting for sport is morally wrong (unless you want to be really “sporting” about it and give the animal a fighting chance, or even stack the odds in its favor since you are the one disturbing it–I have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to go hunt polar bears by themselves carrying only a pocket knife, or jump into the water and hunt orca by themselves carrying only a spear gun; in fact, I encourage all sport hunters the world over to do exactly this!), and partly because basic concepts of biodiversity apply all over the whole planet, and partly because something doesn’t have to be happening right in front of me for me to care about it.
And quite honestly, to use your example, I would seriously worry about the mentality of someone from Alaska or anywhere else who, if they heard about how immigrants, whether legal or illegal, were treated in some particularly horrible fashion, did *not* have some sort of emotional reaction. Just because you don’t live in a place doesn’t mean you can’t get some idea of how things work there, and basic suffering doesn’t change because you switch climates. Sort of like how I had a problem with apartheid, and have now a problem with how women are treated in many countries and cultures. One doesn’t have to live in Afghanistan to think the treatment of women under the Taliban is downright evil, and I despise the sort of multiculturalism that says I should respect local custom and deny any universal principles of decency.
If you’re one of those people who think comparing treatment of humans to treatment of animals or ecosystems cannot be done, then I will say for the same reason I care about the fate of gorillas in Africa and rain forests in South America, or swamps in Florida, and why I loathe and hate the people who fight speedboat regulations off the coast of Florida because they think their right to go fast in the water supersedes the rights of the manatees to swim in their natural habitat without getting killed by asswipes. I have been to some of these places but not all, but I don’t see how I have to live in *any* of them to have an opinion on how some things are done there.
And it should be pointed out that while my immediate, visceral reaction is to care about these things for their own sakes, the overall impact of humanity killing off other species could lead to such things as an ocean full of dead zones and mostly jellyfish even without global warming, which I would also care about just for its own sake, and all these things together could lead to global catastrophe for humans affecting even the relatively insulated, which presumably would get the attention of even the most hardcore “I don’t give a crap about animals” types.
On a more even tempered note, while I don’t like Fox at all, I wasn’t mentioning it in context of Palin and Kucinich for anything other than strategic purposes. It is a help to her, where he had none. By itself, it will not be enough of a help.
-
m Andrea says:
Hmmm, when Bill Clinton was running for president, there was only one child (Chelsea) who was available for crucification by the press. A few republicans tried, but as she was only eleven at the time the attacks were clearly petty and vindictive, and soon stopped. But a down’s baby and anyone over 16 is fair game…
But once the press gets it into their head that someone is off limits, then they tend to keep that belief no matter how old the child eventually becomes…
HA! Palin should put that Down’s baby front and center in a highly publicized, down-home living room style interview. Talk about the kid for a while, and then in a reasonble voice say to the nation: THIS is the child you are attacking, and btw how’s your brain and your ethics? And then use that opportunity to talk about the hardships that ALL people with disabilities must endure at the hands of vile and dispicable people. And perhaps how chemical degregation of our environment contributes to poor health in general, and how we need to be the energy leader of the free world in order to pay for things like better hospitals and programs for helping people to make better lifestyle choices. Spin it like a record, baby!
Hmmm, Obama is friendly but the press calls him charismatic. Palin is friendly but the press calls her a slut. But Palin has too much chutzpah to stop now, she’s only reorganizing her base.
-
MojaveWolf says:
toonces,
I think the American public in general doesn’t vote enough based on issues, and vote too much based on perceptions of personality (that’ll go for at least the last 3 elections, yeah?)
I’ll agree with you that men as a whole voted much more stupidly than women as a whole in most past elections, and were more likely to vote based on slams on personality and such; in 2008 I thought it was more a toss-up, at least in the general election. The primaries? Point taken.
That said, I don’t see much (any?) issue-based reason for a liberal/progressive type to vote for Palin.
-
Toonces says:
That said, I don’t see much (any?) issue-based reason for a liberal/progressive type to vote for Palin.
Neither do I. Did I miss the post where Violet said this site was for Palin supporters only?
-
donna darko says:
mojavewolf, I will never vote Republican but support her feminism. She’s a real cultural feminist even though she’s pro-life.
I heard through the grapevine Hillary is tired of working for Obama so that’s why I think she will challenge Obama in 2012. Clinton vs. Palin will be a classy affair and they will show the boys how it’s done.
-
Violet says:
Sarah Palin isn’t against polar bears. She is on record with her opinion that the Endangered Species Act is the wrong way to protect their habitat, a stance shared by the Obama administration.
She’s not in favor of hunting wolves for sport. The shooting of wolves is predator control. I’m not in favor of it myself, but it’s a situation more nuanced than simply “hunting wolves for sport.” There is debate about how to maintain the ratio of predator to prey, especially in a state where many people hunt for food, and where a skewed ratio of predators brings wolves to cities and settlements where they attack domestic animals (including chained up dogs).
As for global warming, Palin seems to understand it better than the average person. Certainly better than the average person who thinks Palin is an idiot.
-
femina says:
Mojavewolf — You’ve missed the point. It’s really really simple: women and feminists are coming forth to defend Sarah Palin against the misogyny and to push for her to receive an *equal* chance in her political career.
Some of us support her politically and some of us don’t. We do support her as a woman in this women-hating culture in which we live.
-
Lori says:
Yeah, I’m not gonna vote for Palin, but I’ll be happy to see her run, that’s for sure.
Just as Obama has moved our party to the right, Palin seems to have the ability to move her party to the left and we could use that in our nation. She has Trig and Bristol has her baby - she’s walked the walk. She may be the person who is capable of elevating the discussion the Christian right has with this nation. And if that happens, our nation will be better able to move forward.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
The comments at that Legal Insurrection link are horrifying. I’m aghast.
How can I keep being shocked at how much people outright *hate* anyone who isn’t a straight, white, able-bodied male?
The comments there about Trig are horrifying. That doesn’t even touch on the ridiculousness of people saying that because a (breastfeeding) mother is bringing her (infant) child to work with her, that child deserves to be ridiculed for having Down Syndrome.
-
Gender2010 says:
Mojavewolf, The area of Alaska is bigger than the continental US. If there is a wolf pack that is getting out of hand (let’s say in an area that is inhabited by 30,000 people who live off of the Deer and Caribou) one can only go into these areas to thin out the herd by plane. (The people who live in these areas go in and out by plane).
People in the lower 48 have a coastal (read New York, DC, SF) mindset.
During the election I read the Anchorage Daily News and other local papers to get a feel for the area and to educate myself.
Palin is smart and aggressive. Two characteristics that would be lauded by lower 48 Harvard/Yale types.
The prejudice and ignorance that surfaced in the lower 48 towards this governor was astounding.
P.S. Mojave Wolf - Why don’t you go visit Alaska and fly into the areas that were affected by wolf packs killing off the food supply of indigenous peoples? Sounds like a great trip for a wildlife lover. -
Violet says:
Being schooled as a scientist, her previous statements that climate change needs more study is simply bowing to corporate pressure and allowing the degradation of the planet to continue apace.
She doesn’t say that. She says that global warming is happening, without question, and we need to do something about it now.
She also says that while human activity is contributing to global warming, it’s also possible that the earth’s long-term cycles are also involved. I don’t know what kind of scientist you are, but it is not at all clear what causes the cyclical swing of ice ages. Which Palin knows, given that her father is a science teacher and she grew up being lectured on the glacial history of Alaska.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Toonces, I said I was dismayed by the amount of support a Palin candidacy seemed to have among people who otherwise considered themselves progressive; I really wasn’t addressing anyone else in my criticism of Palin.
donna & feminia — agreed; most of the criticism Palin receives is completely unfair misogynistic garbage that, even to my non-Palin loving self, says nothing about her but makes them look like either slime or easily manipulated herd animals, depending on where they are on the information slope. (sad to say, I think *most* people are easily manipulated herd animals, though I keep hoping more will wake up and this will change; hell, I used to fit that category myself when I was younger) My objection is to the number of people who seem to leap from this to getting excited about the idea of her as president.
Violet, sorry, I don’t buy the predator control argument, whether in Alaska or Idaho. Most of the people making it generally just seem to want to shoot wolves, and in some cases are pretty open about not wanting wolves around at all. And there simply aren’t enough polar bear to have a big impact on game populations, so it makes no sense at all in that context.
Re: companion animals occasionally getting killed by wild animals — I live in a very conservative part of California (my area went for McCain in 2008 and we have a Republican representative at both the national and state levels), but even though coyotes are widespread here and fairly often you here about them killing someone’s pet, you almost never hear people calling for their slaughter, and when someone does, they are pretty quickly shouted down. Most people, even most conservative ones, understand that this was their territory first and we are the intruders who should learn to live with them, not the other way around.
And yeah, I think both Palin and Obama are full of shit on their stance toward the EPA. both pretty much have the Bush administration/Tom Tancredo /far right “the earth is ours to exploit yay!” position, as far as I can tell.
-
Gender2010 says:
http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/586116.html
Helicopter wolf-kills help caribou calves
excerpt:
“As ugly and as politically incorrect as the wolf killing might seem to some, they said, the helicopter gunning that took place earlier this year saved caribou, especially young caribou, from being eaten alive.
Fall surveys of the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd completed in October found an average of 39 calves per 100 cows. That’s a dramatic improvement from fall counts of only 1 calf per 100 cows in 2006 and 2007.
~snip~
In this case, however, even some groups staunchly opposed to Alaska wolf-control efforts are conceding the removal of 28 wolves appears to have played a major role in caribou calf survival.
~snip~
“What was fueling the decline, researchers said, was the high ratio of predators — bears and wolves — to prey in the area. The predators were killing and eating caribou faster than the animals could reproduce, leaving the population nowhere to go but down.”
I read the whole article - yes, the wolf shooting is controversial.
-
Violet says:
Predator control is a longstanding government policy in many western states, and it’s controversial. What I object to is simply sweeping all that under the rug in favor of a simplistic “Sarah Palin favors hunting wolves for sport.”
I am adamantly opposed to predator control, like most environmentalists. I think humans need to adapt themselves to wildlife, not the other way around. I also think that studies of decades of predator control show that it’s not doing what ranchers and subsistence hunters claim it’s doing — but my reference there to “decades” should be a tip-off that this is an ongoing debate, not just some crazy-ass wolf-killing spree dreamed up by Sarah Palin.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Violet, I’m not a climatologist, but have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and used to be friends with someone who *is* a professional academic in this area (we quit being friends in last year’s general election, when I said that if there were no third party options I would vote for a MacPalin presidency as the lesser evil), and we should actually be in a cooling cycle right now; the various non-human effects are currently mitigating the human ones, and will probably continue to do so for a couple of decades at least, iirc, after which things will get even worse even faster than they are now, and we are already changing much faster than any historical cycle; part of the reason this is going to do–and in some places is doing–so much damage is because the temperature change is too fast for species to adapt.
Keep in mind too, that the oil company shills making the “we don’t know what’s causing it” argument now are the same people who were trying to deny it was even happening a couple of years ago; they’ve just changed tactics.
-
Sameol says:
If the American people are going to be led around by the nose by the MSM, yesterday wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It’s not like that turned the tide, the loathing of her and Obama worship were a foregone conclusion. But while she’s treated as a joke, I don’t think that’s going to resonate with the millions of people in the same class who are also being treated with contempt. The difference between Palin and Kusinich is that demonizing Kusinich puts off his voters, people who are otherwise inclined to vote for him are embarassed. Not so much with Palin’s voters.
As far as her policies, yeah I don’t agree with them. But I can’t see any substantive difference between her and any Democratic politician I’ve ever voted for. Find me a Democrat at any level who espouses good things and then delivers them and I’ll be happy to consider him. I liked Kusinich but he certainly was quick to endorse Obama and that hasn’t worked out so well for issues I care about
-
Gender2010 says:
Violet,
“What I object to is simply sweeping all that under the rug in favor of a simplistic “Sarah Palin favors hunting wolves for sport.”
Well said.
-
Gender2010 says:
Just curious Mojave wolf:
In regards to the article I just posted. # 85
Are you in favor of baby caribou being eaten alive by wolves thereby not allowing the herd to reproduce itself? And what do you think of how this affects people who live off of Caribou to feed themselves?
There are no Whole Foods or Trader Joes in many parts of Alaska where they can buy Fish grown on a farm. -
Violet says:
Mojave Wolf:
I’m not a climatologist either, but I am the daughter of one. I’ve been studying global weather history for much of my life; it’s a hobby. I stand by what I said earlier. The consensus is solid that our human-produced levels of C02 are causing the current global warming. But as for the cyclical swings in the past, and what the Earth would be doing right now without human impact, there is little consensus. This is a speculative area.
-
JackieV says:
MojaveWolf, the New Agenda is not a “progressive” organization, it is a feminist organization. Some of their members are conservative feminists who would naturally support Palin.
About the wolves, if you look at the data for Alaska, very few wolves are killed during “land and shoot” expeditions. More are killed in traditional hunting expeditions and by trappers. From what I gather, hunting wolves in Alaska is not so much predator control as it is honoring longstanding Alaskan traditions.
Personally, I find hunting and trapping repugnant, but it is not for me to decide what the law should be in Alaska. If they want to outlaw hunting and trapping, they will vote to do so. Animal populations in Alaska are monitored and it appears that the number of wolves is either stable or increasing.
I grew up in the far north and my father was a wildlife biologist for the Canadian government. I learned that it is dangerous to anthromorphize wild animals. Good wildlife management requires that animals be culled sometimes. Overpopulation is very hard on individual animals and damaging to the ecosystem as a whole. Like it or not, humans have been impacting animal populations in North America for thousands of years. Either we stand by and allow damage to various ecosystems to continue or we try and mitigate it. It’s a balancing act.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Gender2010– Thank you for informing me that wolves kill and eat caribou. I would never have guessed! It may take me a while to assimiliate this information into my worldview. And you’re right– I missed all that stuff about wolves wiping out caribou populations!!! Without humans, wolves might have killed *all* the caribou, thereby upsetting the entire balance of nature in that area! It’s a good thing we came along in time! Yay to us for preserving the natural balance, which the wolves were clearly upsetting.
That said,we should quit arguing. I am willng to be proven totally wrong, and to go firsthand, as you suggested, to Alaska. It will indeed be a great thing for a wildlife lover such as me! This being July, it seems like the ideal time for such a trip, as my only previous visit to Alaska was fortuitously in June. Sadly, I am too poor to afford this, either the base cost of the trip, whatever that might be, or not working for several weeks. Otherwise, I would *so* take you up on that offer. But, if you feel really confident of your position, I challenge you to send me the money for this trip. I will promise to write you and this blog of my findings, and should I publish an article or any such, I will split the proceeds w/you 50/50 (this, alas, probably will not equate to the cost of the trip).
What do you say?
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Whatever would be happening to the earth without human contribution to the destruction of our environment is irrelevant. We’re ruining the environment. The earth will recover once we’ve succeeded in killing off the human race due to our selfishness and refusal to make huge changes to save ourselves.
And yeah, I include myself in that “our.” I don’t walk places I could. I have a car. I use air conditioning when it’s above 90 degrees.
We’re all responsible. You who make a conscious effort to reduce your footprint, I salute you. I’m mad at myself for not doing more. Guess it’s time to put up or shut up.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Violet, understood, some of the anti-Palin comments even from people I otherwise respect and like make me cringe in horror and want to withdraw from contact with the human race (much the moreso when they are coming from people I otherwise respect and like) and I hope I wasn’t coming off as one of the indiscriminate Palin bashers. I will bash her (hell, I can’t think of a politician I don’t have some objection to) but I hope only for things that are substantive and legitimate areas of criticism.
I realize Palin is hardly alone in her environmental views (though I think I may have less sympathy for one side of the “ongoing debate”than you, and think their position a bit more dishonest and unreasnable) , and that she didn’t start indiscriminate wolf-hunting; they were nearly wiped out in the bottom 48 long before Palin was born. I was merely pointing to the various people earlier in the thread who were excited about her possible presidency and saying “this is part of why I am *not* excited about her possible presidency”.
-
Violet says:
Mojave Wolf, you and I are pretty much on the same side with the wolf thing. I’m not sure it’s a question of my having more tolerance, but rather that I’m concerned about the complexities. You know what the alternative to the aerial program is? Local trapping. In my opinion, that’s much worse. I think wolf trapping should be fucking outlawed. But good luck with that happening, especially when there’s public pressure not to do aerial culling. Alaska is heavily involved in managing its wildlife, and a completely hands-off policy does not seem to be anywhere on the horizon.
As for Palin: yeah, the issue for me is people pinning on her all the heat and blame. It’s like the way they blamed Hillary for personally orchestrating the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, because of her vote on the AUM.
-
Sis says:
To anyone who posts something like this:
“(…)given her stance on global warming and the environment, her lack of concern for the survival of polar bears as species, her support for aerial hunting of wolves (and gassing their dens?–is that true? read in a comment on Shakes; so much crap is spread about Palin I’m never sure, but I generally find Shakesville a trustworthy site), she might be as awful as Paglia, etc, just in a different way.”
Please enlighten us. Give us quotes from her about her stance on global warming, her lack of concern for the survival of polar bears, aerial “hunting” of wolves, gassing their dens. I want her voice. And no, Shakes is not source.
And while you’re at it: Alaska has a percentage of the world population of wolves and polar bears. What percentage, exactly, and is the population decreasing or growing? How are other countries managing their populations? Why?
If you can’t back this up you are spreading unsubstantiated gossip; gossip which is, by the way, genocidal.
So cough it up. And if you can’t then next time, please don’t post such comments, because next time someone is quoted on this it’ll be you. Just like you quoted someone else who knows nothing.
-
Violet says:
If you can’t back this up you are spreading unsubstantiated gossip; gossip which is, by the way, genocidal.
What?
By the way, before this thread gets too heated: just a reminder to everyone at large that Mojave Wolf is a welcome and respected commenter here. I am concerned about the appearance of a pile-on.
-
Sis says:
mAndrea, if you listen to or read the unedited transcript of her speech, I think you’ll see that sounds pretty much like what she’s going to do. Unless I mis-read, it sounds to me like she’d out of politica altogether. Not that she can’t take it, but that she’s dropping the rope as yttik says, and pretty much handed them their asses. If we didn’t know it before, we do now, that her media and political communications opponents are completely devoid of ethics.
“HA! Palin should put that Down’s baby front and center in a highly publicized, down-home living room style interview. Talk about the kid for a while, and then in a reasonble voice say to the nation: THIS is the child you are attacking, and btw how’s your brain and your ethics? And then use that opportunity to talk about the hardships that ALL people with disabilities must endure at the hands of vile and dispicable people.”
-
Amy K. says:
Polar bear populations are increasing, not decreasing.
-
Puma for Life says:
Palin had nothing to do with the wolf hunt; it was voted on by the people of Alaska before she took office. They have a climate control commission in Alaska..check into it if you care.
I think she made a smart move although I was stunned when I first heard it. First, I got to thinking about the three week notice, which is odd; normally for a management position, you would give minimum four weeks.
Ok, here goes my theory: she has to report on both her defense fund and Sarapac by the end of the month. Let’s say she has enough money in the defense fund to pay down a chunk of her legal fees accumulated as a result of the phony ethic complaints. Also, she has mucho money in her pac. If she can pay down the legal debt now, it will only grow back again if she stays on (they really need to change that ethics law so that filers are responsible for the expenses if they lose). A lot of money in her pac will do her no good if she can’t go anywhere without generating more ethics complaints and whining from the legislatures (they have some very strange people in Alaska).
So, she wants to be out of office when all of the funds are made public…no more ethics complaints and she is free to travel, speak, campaign. I support her 100%; boy did she take the anklebiters by surprise!! Gotcha!
-
Sis says:
The poster was giving a post at Shakes as her source. That’s gossip.
It is genocidal not to manage the wilflife populations. Now. First Nations people, comes right down to it, are the ones who have no other choice but to leve there, get their food there. It’s our land. The rest of the population of the north can go home if they get hungry or cold. We’re already home.
Practices which devastate the land or preaching about land control without knowledge of the land, by people who get their food in grocery store aisles, if followed, will be genocidal.
I have no quarrel with mohaveWolf or any of the other posters making these comments, which I think are based in not knowing. Becaue they are posteres here, I know it’s not “ignorance”.
It’s the ideas I’m talking about. I don’t even care who made them, nor did I look back to attribute.
-
Sis says:
Do you people realize the moose, caribou, and elk are our ‘cow’? They are the creatures that mother earth gave the northern people. Why should we import an animal that comes from — I don’t know, the Asian sub-continent, or South America, to fit with your idea of how the world should be run? And if we need to temporarily cull wolf packs to keep our natural (not imported at great fossil fuel expense) food source intact, so we don’t all need to go on welfare (and probably incur your wrath in another direction) we will.
-
FLAConnie says:
Here are Palin quotes re: climate change =
http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....lobal.html &
http://scienceblogs.com/island.....ng_con.phpRegarding polar bears: Palin spoke out against listing them as threatened. Here’s a link about polar bears: http://www.polarbearsinternati.....opulation/
I actually work for Save the Manatee Club, but not as one our biologists. However, what Dr. Derocher says about looking at different populations - some declining, some recovering - is also true with Florida’s manatees. Population counts, and the discussion of “increases”, follow the same pattern. When the Florida manatee population was first discussed the estimate was 1000, which was based on someone throwing out a figure. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for flying overhead and counting gray shadows in water to determine the number of manatees or moving white bodies on snow to count the number of polar bears. The accuracy of population counts are improving, but historical data is specious.
To the best of my recollection, every Alaskan Governor, Dem or Rep, has supported the aerial gunning of wolves. I wasn’t intending to single out Palin.
I apologize for getting this discussion so far off topic and then disappearing. I’ve been away from my computer all day. If anyone wants to discuss this further you can contact me at ca610 at bellsouth.net. Thanks Mojave_wolf for your shout out to manatees and your other comments.
-
cloaking device says:
yeah, for a site that did so many Palin sexism watches, that thread on Shakesville is overrun by gross gossipy put downs. “That this is a self-serving maneuver is manifestly obvious”…”Be on the lookout, unless of course, she’s pregnant again, or one of the girls maybe?”,”More time for wolf shootin’.” It’s so weird… if it was anyone other than Palin denouncing how much of the people’s $$ and time is being wasted on frivolous political scandals & lawsuits, people would be dancing in the streets, cheering her on as a hero. Personally, I totally agreed with that reasoning for stepping down - don’t care if she’s a Repub or Dem. Weren’t these the same people who thought all the scandals against the Clintons in the 90s were ridiculous? But now that it’s an evil Republican who’s dealing with a ridiculous level of gossip & false charges, their brains have been wiped. WTF?
-
Amy K. says:
Palin’s position on handling problems of polar bears, wolves, immigration, global warming, etc. are different from some other people’s. It seems that because she has a different idea about managing those problems, she doesn’t care about those problems.
Palin doesn’t care about the polar bears. She hates wolves. She wants the earth to burn up with global warming. She despises illegal immigrants. How do we know this? Because she disagrees with someone else’s opinion on how those things should be managed.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me about my solution for any given problem, but assuming you care more than I do because I would choose a different solution is presumptious. Once you start thinking the people who disagree with you are bad, then it is easy to start treating them with disrespect and disdain. Not conducive to civil society.
-
Sis says:
I don’t find a quote from Palin there saying global warming doesn’t exist. D-.
Is the Polar Bear population in her jurisdiction threatened? What population is threatened. Oh god I nearly upchucked seeing that site you linked, with it’s educational lessons and trips for people to learn about the polar bear. Learn something about the humans, first.
A couple months ago, Inuit around Ikaluit took down one of their bears. They have rights to hunt a couple every year. They took a whale too. It’s their livelihood, to take them themselves, or sell the right to a hunter.
But even if the polar bear populations was ‘threatened’ it’s the rest of you need to control your wasteful usage and what that’s doing to our oceans, and how that impacts on Alaska and Ikaluit (in particular I imagine, Alaska, with those ever warming ocean currents turning it into another one of the Hawaiian Islands). What’s that saying? Charity begins at home? So does environmental responsibility.
Protecting the polar bears is a shibboleth, not science. It disgust me to see how little education is done on protecting the humans.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Sis and anyone else who wants them,
links for you:[editorial note from Violet: note that some of the posted links that follow are to articles that make false assertions about Palin or simply express opinion.]
In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior.
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....al-wa.htmlPalin has strongly supported drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (”I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem”
http://www.thedailygreen.com/e.....DKSd&C
http://www.climatesciencewatch.....mate_anwr/
quoting a Palin NYT op-ed, Sarah in her own words: “This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act.”
*********
http://www.climateark.org/shar.....kid=105587
“She’s either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. …**********
Much has been made of Palin’s denial of global warming [note from Violet: what denial of global warming?] since she was nominated as the GOP Veep candidate, but no one has questioned her credibility for using ‘research’ that was funded by ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Foundation.http://members.greenpeace.org/.....xon_junk_s
**************************
According to the LA Times, Palin attended a hearing with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on whether or not to open new Alaskan land for oil drilling. The notorious governor argued in favor–saying the cleaner-burning natural gas that could be extracted would reduce the amount of dirtier emissions and slow down global warming.
http://www.treehugger.com/file.....illing.php**************************************
“Governor Palin has waged a deceptive, dangerous, and costly battle against the polar bear,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Her position on global warming is so extreme, she makes Dick Cheney look like an Al Gore devotee.” [note from Violet: this is just bullshit opinion, and the Center for Biological Diversity isn't doing anything for its credibility by referring to Sarah Palin as a "global warming denier." Gee, what else are they lying about?]Palin has waged a deceptive public relations campaign, asserting that the polar bear is increasing. But many populations (including Alaska’s southern Beaufort Sea) are in decline and two-thirds (including all Alaska bears) are projected to disappear by 2050 by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Palin has repeatedly asserted that Alaska Department of Fish and Game scientists found fatal flaws in the sea ice models used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the polar bear is threatened. When challenged, Palin refused to release the alleged state review. Independent scientists eventually obtained a summary through the federal Freedom of Information Act, revealing that Palin had lied: The state mammalogists concurred with the Fish and Wildlife Service determination that Arctic sea ice is melting at an extraordinary rate and threatens the polar bear with extinction.
“All global warming deniers are eventually forced to suppress scientific studies, and Palin is no different,” said Suckling. “To maintain her ludicrous opposition to protecting the polar bear in the face of massive scientific consensus, Palin stepped over the line to lie about and suppress government science.”
Palin has since filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Bush administration to have the threatened listing overturned. Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey announced on September 16th that the 2008 summertime Arctic sea-ice melt was the second greatest on record, nearly matching the extraordinary melt of 2007.
“Palin’s insistence that Arctic melting is ‘uncertain’ is like someone debating the theory of gravity as they plunge off a cliff,” said Suckling. “It’s hopeless, reckless, and extremely cynical.”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.....-2008.htmlPalin’s Votes on Alaskan Environmental Issues
(from the AP ):-Her administration disputes conclusions by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service and its science advisers that the beluga whale population is in critical danger. The state argues that 2007 data shows the whale rebounding.
-Palin opposed a state ballot initiative to increase protection of salmon streams from mining operations. It was defeated.
-She also opposed a ballot initiative barring the shooting of wolves and bears from aircraft except in biological emergencies. It was also defeated.And then there’s this:
Under Palin, the state Board of Game authorized for the first time in 20 years the shooting of wolves by state wildlife officials from helicopters. The order resulted in the controversial shooting this summer of 14 one-month-old wolf pups taken from dens on a remote peninsula 800 miles southwest of Anchorage — an act that environmentalists claim was illegal. State officials characterized the killings as humanitarian, saying the pups would have suffered and eventually died without the care of their parents. Environmentalists argued they were killed to boost caribou populations to the benefit of hunters. [note from Violet: this is the same event that is discussed in the ADN link provided upthread by Gender2010 -- the one where the danger to the southern caribou herd and its subsequent recovery is acknowledged.]
Additionally, she enacted a policy that provides a bounty of $150 for each freshly killed wolf turned in to the state, which is paid for with state funds.
http://www.treehugger.com/file.....onment.php
I’m on dial-up, and the rest is taking too long to load, but will that do?
-
Violet says:
Mojave Wolf, I’m going to tell you the same thing I told another commenter a few weeks ago: it’s not acceptable to just post links to articles that assert bullshit about Sarah Palin. For example, you have a link there to an article that says Sarah Palin denies global warming. That’s a lie. You have another link to an article that only partially quotes her.
Here are Sarah Palin’s own words on global warming:
“Well, we’re the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I’ve done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. [...]
You know there are - there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.”
-
MojaveWolf says:
Violet–sorry, I just posted something twice because I thought it didn’t go through the first time; the second is still in moderation I think.
Also, thanks for the kind words. What with my last few comments here being a bit contrarian to the general run, I was worried you looking at my every post going “what a pain!”
everyone else: yeah, some of the comments at Shakes, as from some of my liberal friends and one of my favorite blogs, are not-so-good. I was only using it as a source for the “gassing in their dens” bit, which I think I said I was unsure of.
Sis–I don’t object to hunting for food; I find it more “humane” (ah, the irony) than most farming, so long as the species isn’t threatened and it isn’t something cruel (I share Violet’s view of trapping). I don’t think the wolf kills are necessary, though, and with regard to the people vs. animals angles — there are billions of us, swarming the earth like ants (which are also swarming the earth, in part thanks to us! see recent news on mega-colonies) and Alaska is one of the last places where the wildlands actually are wild. I will again say we should be the ones trying to adapt to their needs in such circumstances.
-
Violet says:
I just annotated your giant link post (which went into moderation because of all the links). I don’t mean to be a hard-ass, but there is so much crap about Palin repeated in an endless game of telephone, that I have made a personal vow that I won’t allow it to be propagated here. That’s why links to articles that claim things about Palin — things without backup or that I know are untrue — drive me nuts.
-
RalphB says:
As usual, you nailed it Dr Socks. That may be the smartest thing I’ve heard anyone say about the problem of climate change. It was logic based not ideological.
For those who are interested. Sarah Palin’s attorney released a statement about all the rumors of some federal investigation. These are being mainly floated by a blogger named Shannon Wynn and a ton of “progressive” sites have written it as fact.
-
MojaveWolf says:
My bad, I missed the distortion in my search for quotes.
I don’t think the partial quote was misleading. With regard to the overall effect of her policies, I think it’s fair to infer all sorts of lack of concern for environmental issues, and denying the practical effects of global warming or the human caused nature of it isn’t very different from denying global warming itself
But still, I screwed up, and all apologies.
-
myiq2xu says:
I find it interesting that people express opposition to (and even hate for) Sarah Palin for policies that are not unique to her or the Republican party.
I’m more concerned with the environmental impact of mountaintop removal in West Virginia than aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska.
If Sarah is so terrible, why do her opponents have to lie about her?
-
Sis says:
Well I guess you can shout us down, but you’ve not posted anything that backs up what you’re shouting. I don’t think you’ll find any community where the leader of that community doesn’t think the peopole they represent have a right to use the land and its resources as they choose.
I am sorry for how this will sound, you don’t hear my tone of voice or see me: But isn’t that point of view, that you can defacto demand others live in their own homes as you say, exactly what’s gotten America the bad world citizen reputation it has?
Giving yourself a wolf’s name as your addy is just one example of the glaring wrong of the southern 48 (as you Americans call it) point of view on this issue.
I am tired of arguing this issue with people who really don’t know what they are talking about. I used to think you meant well. Now I’m not so sure. I think if you meant well, you’d learn something. You’re on a witch hunt, making it up as you go along.
I sure do not subscribe to most American policies, no way, but I think this is a dumb as telling the Masai to stop eating what they eat, and wait for your care packages of grain.
No governor of Alaska can just decide the polar bear will be off limits, and the salmon won’t be fished, and the wolves will be allowed to decimate the moose and caribou. This is not Palin. This is the people of Alaska. If Parnel takes this in the opposite direction, he’ll be turfed out at the end of a term because it won’t work. And you’ll be on to some other cause that you know very little about.
-
RalphB says:
“But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.”
How is that denying global warming? Seriously, it’s nothing like denying it when you say “it’s real”.
-
Amy K. says:
“She’s either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Who is Kassie Siegel? Well, she’s the one who petitioned the government and filed suit against them to get the polar bears on the endangered list. The Center for Bioloical Diversity is a self-described activist organization who openly state they find the survival of a certain species of animal more important than the people impacted.
I don’t find them to be a reliable source of clear-headed opinion.
Palin has strongly supported drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (”I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem”
I’m not sure what this proves. She thinks drilling would be a good idea. We all know that. Lots of people agree with her.
“Governor Palin has waged a deceptive, dangerous, and costly battle against the polar bear,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Her position on global warming is so extreme, she makes Dick Cheney look like an Al Gore devotee.”
Ah, the Center for Biological Diversity again. And Kieran Suckling, head activist. I’ve read an interview that he gave. He is extremely radical. His opinion on Palin’s danger and deception is taken with a large grain of salt.
“All global warming deniers are eventually forced to suppress scientific studies, and Palin is no different,” said Suckling. “To maintain her ludicrous opposition to protecting the polar bear in the face of massive scientific consensus, Palin stepped over the line to lie about and suppress government science.”
Oh, boogeyman. Global warming deniers. Well, since by your own quotes, Palin says she does believe there is global warming, she can hardly be called a denier. She doesn’t think mankind has any significant role in that. Guess what, so do millions of others, including thousands of scientists.
Palin has since filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Bush administration to have the threatened listing overturned.
Notice, that their lawsuit to enact the threatened listing is not frivolous, only Palin’s to have it lifted.
MojaveWolf, I could keep going, but you are quoting radical activist people and organizations to bolster your opinion that Palin is a bad person.
She disagrees with you and these other people. Believe it or not, she’s not the only one. We are not all polar bear haters who want the environment to be destroyed. We don’t believe there is “massive consensus” as insisted by Mr. Suckling. We think there is a better way to ensure polar bears do not become endangered, a more narrow solution that wouldn’t stall needed engineering projects.
I’m on dial-up, and the rest is taking too long to load, but will that do?
Will it do what? Convince me you are taking your information from radical activists and then painting everyone who disagrees with them as reality-denying nutjobs? Why yes, that’ll do.
-
Sis says:
I don’t see the problem with paying citizens to recoup their costs when culling wolves. Where I’ve lived, government wildlife management departments do it. I think they still do. I don’t know, because it’s just one of the things done, like having a department of snow removal. Do you see?
Where I’ve lived people are very respectful of polar bears and the animal’s rights. Much more so than the First Nations people who live in the same area, sad to say. You go about your business and they theirs but if push comes to shove, someone is authorized to go out and shoot them, and no-one blinks.
-
Sis says:
Meant to say: People are much more respectful of a polar bears rights than the rights of First Nations people. If Palin was taking steps to make it better for First Nations (and any other Alaskans) to survive, I think she was doing her job.
-
Sameol says:
I don’t want to pile on, but you’re really not listening to Sis or anyone else when you *continue* to make these statements about how “we” should be the ones adapting to the amimals’ needs. “You” do not live in Alaska, you are not going to be affected in any concrete way, and the fact that you keep making statements like that is leaning a bit to the culturally imperialist side, IMO. You have to take people’s concerns Much more seriously when you’re proposing changes that affect them drastically and you not at all.
-
myiq2xu says:
There is a reason that big predators like bears and wolves have been hunted to near extinction - they aren’t picky on what they kill for food, including livestock, pets and humans.
People who live where the largest predator is a coyote (or none) have no business making the rules for people who live much closer to nature.
In the cities and suburbs they capture and kill unlicensed dogs and feral cats.
-
Sis says:
Funny you should mention that, but then, with your IQ being twice mine and all…
We used to appont someone different each week to monitor the bus stop. That person would call others, saying if we could take the kids to school or not. School is cancelled. There’s a polar bear at the bus stop. I thought that was very respectful of us. We stayed home, holed up in our dark little two or three room houses (electricity is furious expensive in the north) until it moved on along the coast. The Arctic coast.
-
Violet says:
There are two different issues here. One is about what Palin does or does not believe, what she has or has not said. On that issue, I find myself continually correcting the falsehoods that are attributed to her. It bothers me that environmentalists are some of the people spreading those falsehoods, just like it bothers me that feminists are some of the people spreading falsehoods. I’m both a feminist and an environmentalist. We ought to be better than that.
The second issue is about the wisdom of Palin’s actual policies and beliefs. As it happens, I do find her too conservative on environmental issues — though she’s not the nut she’s painted to be, by any means. But she is too conservative for my tastes — conservative in the sense of being on the political right, not in the sense of actually conserving our environment.
As for “cultural imperialism,” I have the same view as I do on women’s rights: culture is secondary to universal rights. I believe that the rights of all creatures need to be balanced (including humans, but also including wolves and caribou and everything else). Just because I don’t live in Alaska doesn’t mean I or any other person doesn’t have the right to oppose the trapping of wolves, anymore than not living in Saudi Arabia doesn’t mean I can’t object to women there being stoned to death.
-
Sis says:
Something about your analogy doesn’t work Dr. Socks.
-
NoBO says:
MojaveWolf — It was Defenders of Wildlife that spread that info about the gassing of wolf cubs in their dens. I get frequent e-mails from them, and there’s a slew of anti-wildlife measures her Board of Game is responsible for. Alaskans voted against the aerial wolf hunt twice, but she ignored that. I find her savagery unsettling.
I couldn’t stand Palin from the start, but it was when I started hearing her positions against wildlife on the local radio and news that my blood pressure really started to soar. My feeling about her from the beginning was that she was very Bushlike, and it was actually quite depressing to me when she became governor, because one of the best things about living in AK is the distance from the Lower 48 and the extra sense of independence and objectivity it affords. I felt for the first time like a good deal of our distance from DC politics had been erased. I had no idea how soon that was to become even more true.
Plus to have a woman, my age, be in such direct opposition to everything I stood for “take over” the state felt horrible in a way I can’t describe. Like having my identity eclipsed in a way. I’ve been reading PUMA blogs daily for over a year but I’ve kept my mouth sealed about Palin and sometimes it was really hard. But I felt from the time of her selection I’d rather have her and McCain elected than Barky. She may be horrible, but Barky is many orders of magnitude more horrible.
The message boards were full of horrendous slime from day one. And it was surreal reading them, because they were almost entirely made up crap. Here I couldn’t stand her, but I could not relate in any way to the “others who hated her” because it was practically pure misogyny. That first week reading DU (after she was picked) was the most joyful I’d felt the entire election. Seeing all those posters who’d been so unbelievably vile to Hillary and her supporters peeing their pants in terror. There were hundreds of threads and pages and pages of Palin hysteria. Oh, how hilarious that was. However, there was still a chance she could knock the ticket into the winner’s circle at that point. If she had kept Barky out of the White House I would have had a reason to actually like her. She would have served a real purpose. I can’t get excited about her any more.
I defend her because she’s been treated so horribly and in such a sexist manner. Which is odd. The rest of my family liked her when she was elected, now I have to defend her against all of them because *they* can’t stand her, and largely because of what they’ve heard from the slime machine. My sister is an Obot, and boy does that feel terrible, since our politics used to be so similar. She’s even had several encounters with Palin in person (it’s a rather small world up here) and although she didn’t used to complain how awful Palin was at the time — she does now! It’s like she’s been reprogrammed to spit fire about the most trivial Palin trivia.
Btw, I think electing Palin was mostly a good move by the Republicans up here to save their power. Murkowski had the lowest popularity rating of any governor in America, and in order to keep the Dems from grabbing the governorship with the likeable, knowledgable and experienced Tony Knowles they had to repackage themselves with someone fresh, new, energetic, who happened to be female. Someone as different from Murkowski as possible. Someone who would quickly make everyone forget him.
-
RalphB says:
You can oppose the trapping of wolves all you desire. But don’t be surprised when native populations don’t agree and think you are an imperialist.
From my own point of view, outside of cruelty laws, it’s ridiculous to compare the rights of humans to other animals. The rights of human beings to live always should win.
-
Sis says:
I think mohavewolf is genuine in her/his desire to know, so I am offering the best easily available link to some pretty good articles about the problems in the Arctic. Any part of the Arctic, although the studied sites are Canadian. This journalist is good. http://www.thestar.com/arctic
I would also recommend but haven’t been able to find, an audio and video file (I know they exist) of Sheila Cloutier (co-nominated for the Nobel that Gore received)as she explains why northern First Nations will die out if we all don’t preserve the ice. “The right to be cold”. So maybe you can find that, mohavewolf.
I’m going to cook some endangered pasta.
Happy Fourth of July, my friends.
-
Amy K. says:
I would like to point out that my only point is that having a different opinion doesn’t necessarily make a person bad.
I believe MojaveWolf is wrong, but I still respect her right to have her opinion and even admire her passion. I understand that she wants to save the environment and doesn’t want animals to suffer. I don’t assume that her proposed solutions means she doesn’t care about technology and people.
I don’t impute bad motives to her because I think she is misguided in her opinions. I would not call her names for disagreeing with me.
I would like to see women (especially those who identify themselves as feminists) to actually respect other females. Period. Full Stop. Why would you only deserve respect if you hold the same opinions?
MW doesn’t differentiate between the idea and the person. Why can’t the idea be bad, but the person treated with respect? Where do you think sexism comes from? Women are objectified and vilified instead of treated as individuals deserving of respect. You are manifesting the exact behavior you deplore in others.
-
octogalore says:
Mojave-Wolf: “That said, I don’t see much (any?) issue-based reason for a liberal/progressive type to vote for Palin.”
The problem with what you have said is the conflation of social liberals with economic liberals. This is the classic disconnect with the group that says “but how could someone vote for both Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general?”
There is such a thing as someone who is liberal in some respects (eg, social) and conservative in others (eg, economic) and votes based on the particular candidate. This person (who as you may have guessed is not purely hypothetical) may weigh the variables in such a way:
McCain/Palin: voicing some problematic social policies, but the difference between these and what McCain was saying in 04 is probably due to campaign pressure. Against a solid social progressive like HRC, this wouldn’t be enough. Against someone who seems wishy-washy on social issues like choice, gay marriage, etc., less of an issue. Good on general economic principles. One of them has long-term political experience and his mom is still around at 96, so it’s a gamble one could live with.
Obama/Biden: On social issues, who knows. Saying many of the right things, but the “above my pay grade” and other statements lend concern. Moreover, statements made by Obama and team are highly problematic from a feminist perspective, given credence to fears that many of the pro-woman statements are campaign lip service. Experience level at the top of the ticket is highly problematic. On the economy, flirtation with lifting the cap on payroll tax (which HRC said unequivocally she wouldn’t do) would kill small business and in so doing, the largest source of job creation and entrepreneurialism.
You may not agree with the underlying politics, but you should certainly be able to acknowledge that there are folks who do, who are not easily classed as “liberal” or “conservative,” and for whom this could be a highly logical choice.
-
Sis says:
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Nobel prize co-nominee giving her talk “The Right to Be Cold”.
What Palin or any legislator does is not done in a vacuum.
http://www.globalissues.org/vi.....c#TheVideo
I am not arguing that Palin is right. Just that you are wrong if you do not see her choices from the perspective of a northerner.
And Cloutier does not represent all Inuit either.
-
Sameol says:
I didn’t say anyone doesn’t have the right to oppose the trapping of wolves or any other policy because they don’t live in Alaska. What I said was, IMO it’s culturally imperialistic to be too cavalier about the issues involved and dismiss the concerns of the affected populations with statements about how “we” have to adapt to the animals. If I were Alaskan, being told that by Californians and Arkansans that they see no difference between my situation and the coyote in their garden probably wouldn’t make me inclined to change my viewpoint.
-
Carmonn says:
Is there as much angst in the Democratic and left leaning Palin defending bit of the blogosphere demanding that everyone must support Palin (not defending her, but demanding votes for her) as there is handwringing about how no liberal could ever support her? I haven’t seen it but maybe I don’t spend enough time online.
My reason for wanting to vote for her is feminism. I don’t want to legitimize the way misogyny has become one of the main tools of the Democratic Party. I want to support the 30% solution. I don’t want to have to answer little girls’ questions (and not just about whether or not they can be President but a whole range of questions about being female) with, “I’m sorry, I respect you too much to lie to you…”
And yet, I still could never say that I can see no reason for liberals/progressives to support the Democratic Party, besides supporting the institutionalization of sexism. I even understand why feminists would support Obama. I don’t see why anyone would support him enthusiasticly, or lie and smear for him, but I fully understand why a reasonable feminist could conclude that on balance the democrats might be slighly better on feminist policy than the Republicans. If I thought that, instead of thinking they’re equally bad on policy and they’ve got to be pushed back before they set our progress back even further, I might be holding y nose and supporting Obama myself.
Why is this so difficult? You don’t want to support Palin, nobody’s asking you to. But why this constant angst about what is and is not an acceptable reason for voting? After this election cycle, any male politician who wants my vote over a female candidate better prove he’s the second coming of Gandhi and will not only pursue better policies than the current crop of politicians of both parties but will also somehow be committed to undoing catastrophes like putting Alito on the Court. And if it’s not acceptable, or irrational, or “so-called” liberal to make that my main criteria as opposed to the fate of the polar bears or whatever, then tough luck. Maybe progressives and liberals should have done more to increase particpation by women in government and improve the status of women in society over the past several decades and then this woouldn’t have become an issue that some of us are feeling we need to step outside of the party box in order to schieve.
Just because you don’t agree with someone’s reasons for voting or they’re not t the top of your priority list doesn’t mean there aren’t any reasons, they aren’t valid reasons, or they’re not liberal reasons.
-
donna darko says:
Via Firedoglake, a right-winger nailed the left’s fear of Palin. She is a threat to Obama and she exposes their classism:
There’s a reason why the Left and much of the media establishment hated you from day one. Some hated you out of the fear that you might stop Barack Obama’s unfolding coronation. Others because you seemed to expose the snobbery, arrogance, and ideological pieties of elite feminism. Your beauty, your status as a working mom, your blue-collar husband, your bravery in taking on the political establishment in Alaska, your proud status as a pro-lifer and mother of a special-needs child: All of these things were — and are — deeply threatening to a secular left-wing cultural elite.
-
donna darko says:
Notice these are the same reason the leftist elite hated the Clintons. They were feminist and lower, working class.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Violet, re: comment #123, you said that beautifully and I basically agree.
You’ve probably read it, but if not, you might like Susan Mueller Okin’s “Why Multiculturalism Is Bad For Women”
NoBO & FlaConnie– Yes.
Octo — My fault for not being more clear. I should have said “to be enthusiastic about Palin”. As mentioned above I permanently lost two friends last fall for saying that I would vote for MacPalin over Obama/Biden if there was no third party option. And while I classify Obama and Palin both as conservative economically in the corporatist sense, so I don’t see a big difference in anything except rhetoric, if you think she would be more traditionally conservative, then from the conservative point of view, I see your point. Keep in mind, though, that is from the conservative point of view, not the liberal one.
While I find a number of admirable qualities about her as a person, I don’t think she is appealing to me in any area politically except possibly self-defense issues, where *I’m* sort of conservative/libertarian.
iQ — I don’t find the “but other people are just as bad” argument compelling, whether from Palin fans saying “look at Obama!” or Obots saying “but McCain would have been worse!” You are right that Obama is just as bad on the environment, and with less excuse — Palin has to play to her base to get where she’s at. Whether it’s her actual view, I can’t be sure, but she does seem to go further in that direction than needed, so I’m assuming yes. Obama is actually opposing his base on environmental issues, and getting away with it because the media ignores it and his base doesn’t want to admit they were complete fools last year. As to why I’m not criticizing him (or the rest of the dem leadership) here, ’tis because there’s no point; I don’t think a whole lot of Obama or Harry Reid fans are reading this blog.
And while I don’t think it’s remotely relevant, coyotes are not the largest local predators. That would be mountain lions. They are much less common, but none of us go around hunting them, either. Besides which, no matter where you go in this world, the most dangerous predators are humans, and anyone who doesn’t get that is perceiving reality very differently than I.
Sis: I’m done for the night, but shall read your links later. From the headers it sounds like most of them would be making the “fight global warming” case, so I’m not quite sure where we’re at odds here.
-
octogalore says:
“And while I classify Obama and Palin both as conservative economically in the corporatist sense, so I don’t see a big difference in anything except rhetoric, if you think she would be more traditionally conservative, then from the conservative point of view, I see your point. Keep in mind, though, that is from the conservative point of view, not the liberal one.”
I find it hard to believe that as Palin and McCain campaigned on cutting spending, in light of both campaign discussions and the past few months, it would be hard to see why an economic conservative would see a big difference there.
And this is not from the conservative vs liberal POV, but strictly from the fiscal conservative POV. Someone espousing this POV can be a social liberal. Precision is important.
My condolences on losing the friends. But as I’ve discovered… if they are that easy come/easy go, they were never true friends.
-
Sameol says:
I came up with an analogy of my own, how about we are so horrified by stonings in Saudi Arabia that we contact Saudi women and suggest that we find something that’s punishable by stoning, say running down the street naked, and we’ll set a time and we’ll all do it together. And if they point out that the levels of risk and involvement are different, we tell them that we must not be passive, we must fight for our rights, we must not buckle under.
Listening to and giving weight to the concerns of our Saudi friends does not make us objectively pro-stoning.
-
Sis says:
We’re at odds in ways. We both acknowledge there is global warming. The fact that after all this talk you don’t even get that. I don’t think anyone here said there was not global warming. Just as you invent things Sarah Palin says, I suppose you will now go around saying I, we, don’t believe there is global warming? I can’t help you further.
-
Kat says:
@donna darko, #133:
Spot on. For one, they wouldn’t have hosted the misogynistic witch burning danceathon if they weren’t scared of her. They are very threatened by a popular politician who challenges their GQ, feel-good-about-me politician. I can always tell how scared they are by how desperate they sound as they squeak, “I’m NOT threatened, she’s NOT a threat, I’m just showing how cool I am by sneering at a working class woman about whom I spread lies!”
Two, I think they know that this is based on deranged hatred of working and lower classes, and they know that shoots a hole in their narrative. So, it must be covered up with much drama.
-
gxm17 says:
…I care about Palin’s stance on polar bears and wolves partly because I happen to like polar bears and wolves, and partly because I think hunting for sport is morally wrong (unless you want to be really “sporting” about it and give the animal a fighting chance, or even stack the odds in its favor since you are the one disturbing it–I have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to go hunt polar bears by themselves carrying only a pocket knife, or jump into the water and hunt orca by themselves carrying only a spear gun; in fact, I encourage all sport hunters the world over to do exactly this!)…
Homo sapiens is an apex predator. We give other species the same “fighting chance” that a Great White does. It’s what we do as part of our animal nature. Long before guns were invented Native Alaskans were hunting with other man-made (not wolf-made or caribou-made) weapons. The weapons that homo sapiens have developed are just as natural to our species as the Great White’s awesome power and acrobatic prowess. Which, IMO, makes this part of your argument both ineffective and naive.
But if it makes you feel any better, there’s a very good chance we’ll end up killing ourselves off with our own weapons and/or disregard for the environment.
