posted
Kath, do you actually not realize or remember that Palin is still active in GOP politics, on Fox News and was in fact campaigning on the behalf of various Tea Party candidates?
IP: Logged |
From the evidence, she quit a GOVERNORSHIP to become an entertainer, and she hasn't declared she is running for anything else. Until/unless she does, she's an entertainer.
Speculation about her possible political career simply makes her a more valuable one, because people are paying attention and the speculation keeps her in the news. It's kind of brilliant. I'm in awe. It's clearly working.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I know she campaigns for candidates - so does Sean Penn. And Alec Baldwin. And Barbra Streisand. She's just clearly better at it, in part because people keep taking this reality show host so seriously.
Bono from U2 is also a political activist. He's not running for president either.
----
I'm not saying she's really a hunter. I'm saying she is a reality show star and an entertainer, and is startlingly brilliant at it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:She quit her position of elected power in order to become a well-paid entertainer.
For what it's worth, I strongly suspect she quit her position of elected power to become a well-paid campaigner. Yes, she's currently working as an entertainer -- but I strongly, strongly doubt that this is the limit of her ambition.
It's important to note that being and entertainer and being a politician aren't mutually exclusive. She is the most recent GOP candidate for VP, a leader in the Tea Party movement and is considered by many a top candidate for the GOP presidential candidacy in 2012. That makes her fundamentally different from entertainers like Streisand and Bono. It's rather unrealistic to suggest people should ignore that simply because she hasn't yet declared her intent to run for future office.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If/when she files to run for office, I'll reassess. As long as she's getting paid for putting on Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, the assessment stands.
I'd be shocked if she ever ran again. She clearly gets more money and commands more public attention where she is now. If she ever runs again, it will be because people stopped paying attention to her and she hopes to get the eyeballs back. ---
BB, she was a politician. She quit to become an entertainer. As long as she gets paid for the eyeballs she brings in and not for the power she weilds on behalf on an electorate, that's what she is.
She is no more presently a politician than Jon Stewart.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina: She quit a governorship because it would not have been politically wise to continue with all the investigations and criticism she was facing for the remainder of her term. Whether she could have continued on and been reelected as governor is something that is hard to say.
Perhaps you are right in that she has no political ambitions anymore, which to me seems to indicate and even worse goal. She wants to become the intellectual head of the conservative movement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intriguingly, Palin is currently trading at 68% chance of running for President before 2011 ends. There's good money to be made betting against that if she really won't be running.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While all the speculation about her true motives is doubtlessly great fun, it still remains that you are getting frothy about the peer of Lauren Conrad. ---
As a point of clarification, it is because she quit that I suspect she isn't going to run again. People move back and forth between different careers, but quitting in the middle? That's a career change. Which clearly turned out to be wildly successful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a point of clarification, it is because she quit that I suspect she isn't going to run again.
Different job. I suspect her handlers correctly perceived that actually being the governor of Alaska was ultimately less useful to her than having briefly been the governor. Certainly she won't be running for the governor's office again.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If she files to run for president, I'll reassess. For anything, actually.
In the meantime, it's exactly like getting horrendously upset about Kate Gosselin.
You're being ridiculous. Every American who voted had to think "Do I want Sarah Palin to be vice-president, and be one heart beat away from being my president?" NO ONE has ever done that with Kate Gosselin.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Lay off the ad hominems. You can disagree without resorting to insults.
2. She isn't a vice president candidate now. Now, she's a reality star, and until she files to run again, that she remains.
----
Do y'all see that you're giving her the best of both worlds? She's being taken seriously as a politician and policy-thinker (disagreeing so fervently is taking her seriously) while making money hand over fist as an entertainer.
You think you're discrediting her, but your anger is legitimizing. The more you insist she's a serious candidate, despite not actually being a candidate, the more propped up her entertainment schtick is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, You're a Palin supporter, so it's kind of hard to take you seriously here, even aside from how bad your arguments are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: kat, You're a Palin supporter, so it's kind of hard to take you seriously here, even aside from how bad your arguments are.
Ha!! Wrong assumption. And more than a little insulting. Let go of your grudges before you post.
----
She quit! She was governor and she quit. Unless you are dying of cancer, you don't quit. Leaders don't quit. Roosevelt didn't quit, and he was in a wheelchair. "People are being mean to me" is not a good reason to quit, not if you are a leader of any kind.
I don't think she is the devil, because she isn't. I think she was a pitifully bad elected official, because she quit, but she did quit, so it is not an issue. I think she is a perfectly acceptable reality show host, so it works out that that she agrees with me and that's what she is.
That people continue to take her seriously is a serious problem, but not her fault. It's your fault for lending her so much credence. I suspect it is because it is fun to kick at and mock a beautiful woman. It's the same reason America's Next Top Model makes me sick to my stomach - the draw is the humiliation, but the contestants on America's Next Top Model literally sign up for that. Palin is cashing in on it, but that mysogyny is coming from you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll let you two talk amongst yourselves. This bitter, nasty hatefest part of the conversation isn't worth my attention.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'll let you two talk amongst yourselves. This bitter, nasty hatefest part of the conversation isn't worth my attention.
Whistled. I'll ask you again, kat, to talk respectfully and civilly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... I suspect it is because it is fun to kick at and mock a beautiful woman.
All of this comes back to you disagreeing, and you blaming their inadequecies for causing the disagreement.
No matter how you try to put it, you disagreeing doesn't mean there is a problem with them. It is revealing only of your own assumptions.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: "People are being mean to me" is not a good reason to quit
No, but over $500,000 in legal bills to fight allegations being brought against you probably is a good reason to quit as more charges are being filed as long as she remained in office
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath, you complain about everyone jumping to conclusions, yet you yourself have jumped to a big conclusion--that she left the Governorship to be an entertainer. Others think its more likely that she left the Governorship to run for the Presidency.
People do quit smaller positions to run for larger ones, and since running for President can be a full time job, she may have decided to spend all her energy doing just that.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people turned it from a discussion about Palin to a discussion about me.
You're the problem. And this discussion is now boring.
When you can counter someone's opposing opinion without attacking the person themself, then it might be worth it again.
----
DM, when she files to run for something again, then I'll reasses. Until then, the evidence suggests she quit politics to enter entertainment. Follow the money.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not been attacking you. I've clarified that, because I worded that poorly in one post.
I disagree that she quit to entertain. I believe that she's still politicking.
I think you're arguments comparing Palin to Kate is a silly one.
I do not enjoy mocking women.
I have not intentionally been bitter or hateful.
And most of the discussion is still about Palin. It seems that you're stuck on what you perceive to be an attack on you.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda wondering why katharina is being called a Palin supporter when she's said, in this thread, how pitiful a politician Palin was...
And I have to agree with her. Palin strikes me as a power junkie. She doesn't necessarily want to be president, I don't think. I think she wants power and influence and money. Often, going into politics is a good way to get those items. But Palin has discovered another route which is ultimately even better because she had no responsibility.
If she builds enough of a base and enough support she might actually run, but she doesn't really need to. Even then, it's a win-win for her. If she wins, great, she's president. If she doesn't, it's because the liberal elite targeted her and she can ride the victim train into larger audiences and more speaking fees. Either way, she's golden, and she's smart enough to know that.
Right now, in the position she's in, she has power and influence and money and every thing she does will bring her more, and every mistake she makes will be pounced on by her detractors which will make her supporters rise up and love her more. Whatever you think of her values or political skill, her marketing skills are amazing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: When you can counter someone's opposing opinion without attacking the person themself, then it might be worth it again.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... that mysogyny is coming from you.
Chris, exactly. I'm kind of in awe. I do think the continued obsession with her - both approving and belligerent - is all made of win for her. That's not even a slam - I don't consider ambition to be an inherently negative trait. Influence, attention, and wealth with no responsibility? Nice work if you can get it. Clearly she can. Running for office again would take away two of the three. I don't think she'll do it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin has said that given some unspecific set of preconditions, she will run for President in 2012.
She has not filed anything officially, but by her own words, she is a potential candidate in 2012. Honestly, I agree that the concern that people give her is way overdone, but given that this particular instance reinforces some of the major reasons why she'd make a terrible President (ie. she's unskilled in many areas but tends to lie and pretend that she is not) in a way that exposes her true nature to people who might otherwise support her, I can see why people have been focusing on this.
For me, I was amazed that after she outed her teenage daughter's pregnancy for her own political benefit, she still has anywhere near the amount of support that she does and has anyone believing that she fits the role of a "mama grizzly". She's done quite a few troubling things, but that was out and out appalling.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Palin has said that given some unspecific set of preconditions, she will run for President in 2012.
She has not filed anything officially, but by her own words, she is a potential candidate in 2012. Honestly, I agree that the concern that people give her is way overdone, but given that this particular instance reinforces some of the major reasons why she'd make a terrible President (ie. she's unskilled in many areas but tends to lie and pretend that she is not) in a way that exposes her true nature to people who might otherwise support her, I can see why people have been focusing on this.
For me, I was amazed that after she outed her teenage daughter's pregnancy for her own political benefit, she still has anywhere near the amount of support that she does. She's done quite a few troubling things, but that was out and out appalling.
Since I can't imagine it actually remaining a secret, that she took control of when to do so doesn't bother me. It's not like if she hadn't, it never would have come out. It's better to take control of the news.
Hinting about running is necessary to keep the attention. I'll believe it when she actually files.
Barbra Streisand has hinted about running for Senate. So has Alec Baldwin.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kinda wondering why katharina is being called a Palin supporter when she's said, in this thread, how pitiful a politician Palin was...
Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean political supporter, although I can see where people would get that impression. From what I've seen, kat has been the most constant and positive supporter of Sarah Palin on Hatrack.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin thrives on being able to criticize others freely without being open to receive any herself. She'll have her own talk show one day, but I doubt she takes her chances at President as seriously as some of her supporters do. The real reason she's even in the discussion at all is because there's no one else for the GOP to really nominate. I don't realistically see Mitt or Rudy getting out of primaries. Maybe Bobby Jindal.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since I can't imagine it actually remaining a secret, that she took control of when to do so doesn't bother me.
That's not what happened. The Palin camp was very clear that they chose to release that information to counter the rumor that Trig was really Bristol's child.
That, and how they flogged this after they released it, disgusted me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since I can't imagine it actually remaining a secret, that she took control of when to do so doesn't bother me.
That's not what happened. The Palin camp was very clear that they chose to release that information to counter the rumor that Trig was really Bristol's child.
The timing may have been politically apropos, but it isn't like it was going to remain a secret if they didn't say anything.
There's a long and storied tradition of children being trotted out for public events. Ask the Obama girls in their cute J. Crew coats.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barbra Streisand has hinted about running for Senate. So has Alec Baldwin.
But they have never been VP candidates! There's a big difference!
The theory being that once a candidate, she is more likely to be a candidate again?
Or is it the theory that the campaign never ends, even after the election is over and the candidate has a new job?
For the first, maybe, except for all the reasons above why it isn't likely.
For the second, what a horrifying thought. Running for office means not only giving up your privacy for the election and if you win, but forever? That's a terrible deal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An additional angle to this is the Tea Party. I think the rank and file are a mixed bunch, but the leaders like Palin, Beck, the Koch brothers, etc. are exactly this sort of self-serving and dishonest people that are relying on constructed hollow identities to manipulate the people who follow them.
Regardless of the underlying message (and, if you get away from the evangelical Christianity and hatred for Obama and immigrants, I agree with or at least think important a fair bit of what they have to say), a movement with this sort of leadership is going to be a bad thing for the country.
Chipping away at the facade these people have put up is likely to be a good thing, although, really, I wish it were coming from people with conservative credentials.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barbra Streisand has hinted about running for Senate. So has Alec Baldwin.
But they have never been VP candidates! There's a big difference!
The theory being that once a candidate, she is more likely to be a candidate again?
Or is it the theory that the campaign never ends, even after the election is over and the candidate has a new job?
For the first, maybe, except for all the reasons above why it isn't likely.
For the second, what a horrifying thought. Running for office means not only giving up your privacy for the election and if you win, but forever? That's a terrible deal.
The campaign never ends. Especially when you're making an active attempt to keep your name and brand relevant within the political arena. And it's not like Palin's making a real attempt at keep her life private to begin with. She has her own reality show.
Palin will only cease to be relevant when she has run out of political capital or when the GOP ceases to find use with her. Right now if Palin decides not to run, I don't see her being relevant for more than a few years after the 2012 elections, especially if the GOP gets their candidate in the White House.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you read those articles in the Washington Post about the Tea Parties? That's plural because of how dissolute it is. I'm not going to link because I'm lazy, but I'm sure it was the Washington Post.
Their conclusion, after surveying almost a thousand Tea Party groups across the U.S., is that there isn't any central leaders, not even the ones mentioned. Rather than a group following those leaders, it is various public figures trying to hitch their wagons to the group(s).
So, attacking the leaders doesn't dissapate the groups or lessen their influence, because they may be recognizable public faces, but they aren't actually the leaders.
As a political history buff and spectator, I'm kind of delighted by the grass roots Tea Party. It's fun to watch. I can't believe that happened. It makes me feel almost patriotic, mostly because Obama and the last Congress didn't send soldiers with guns to shoot the voters. Downright inspiring, that. If this were the Roman republic, someone would have been killed by ceiling tiles by now. And then a mob would have torn someone else to pieces. That that hasn't happened makes me all flag-wavey.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody has crossed any major lines as far as I'm concerned, but I would appreciate it if people would allow katharina to shift emphasis back to talking about Sarah Palin as opposed to her.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is plenty of misogyny in politics. Any one who doubts it need only look at this website.this website
Fortunately for Palin, she's pretty enough that she is attacked for what she does and what she says rather than how she looks.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The only person I can see doing that was me, when I said she was a Palin supporter, which was a pretty small deal, but something that I thought was relevant.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. If you think "entertainers" are less subject to public scrutiny than politicians, you haven't walked past the magazine counter at the grocery story in over 40 years. Marie Osmond is still making the cover of the scandal sheets and she hasn't been a genuine celebrity for decades. Barbaba Streisand had an entire book published revealing all her personal foibles. Bono has made the tabloids when a 19 year old girl posted pictures of herself in a bikini with him.
2. If Palin wanted "privacy" for herself and her family (as she intimated when she stepped down as Alaska's governor), she would have retired quitely to Wasilla and kept a low profile rather than doing the celebrity circuit and starring in her own reality show.
3. No one here has discussed anything about Palin that she hasn't, herself, broadcast publically. How can we possibly be invading her privacy if we are only discussing the things she has chosen to broadcast on national television.
4. Countering peoples criticisms of Palin with "That's misogynist" is the very definition of an ad hominem argument. Rather than address the argument and its validity, it is attacking the motives of the person making the argument.
5. I have seen no arguments here that I would consider misogynist. No one has attacked Palin for being girly, for how she looks or even because she isn't a skilled hunter or outdoorsman. The criticism leveled at her is that she has mislead people about her skills. Unless you think people don't care when men lie about their skills and qualifications, I can't see how that is misogynist.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that getting mad at Palin for not being a crack hunter is like getting mad at David Copperfield for not being magic. Or at Lauren Conrad for not actually having dramatic public arguments when the camera isn't running.
She's putting on a show. For that job, she's doing fine. If you're frothy because she doesn't hunt, you're going to freak out when you learn that the Bachelor and his fiance aren't getting married.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
