It's comments like this which emphasise why the right wing in the US are in such trouble. They really are myopic and imagine that the rest of the country sees the world through the same fractured prism as they do.
They spend so much time talking to themselves that they simply have no idea how insane they sound.
The wingnuts had decided that Palin was their new hero so we should have expected their reaction to her departure from office to be dramatic, but Erick Erickson over at Red State takes it to a new level:
1. Sarah Palin resigned, I think, to spare her family from more attacks. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Sarah Palin is doing this just days after a very nasty Vanity Fair article where folks like Nicolle Wallace and, according to Bill Kristol, McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt (though I’m told Schmidt is not involved), savaged her.Erickson has decided to portray this as if it was the attacks on Palin's children which drove her from office. This is, of course, complete supposition on his part; but it's the course he chooses so that he can portray Palin as a victim "gang raped" by the left. To see Palin as a victim here we would have to forget that she called Obama a man who "pallied around with terrorists". We would have to ignore the cries of "Kill him!" which regularly interrupted her rallies when she made these bizarre claims.
2. Unfortunately, by resigning, I think the left and national media will be emboldened to ritualistically engage in the metaphorical gang raping of conservative politicians, particularly those who are female and have children. They’ll decide savaging Palin’s family drove her from office, so the sky’s the limit on the next conservative with kids.
"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News of their new strategy to attack Obama's character. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."So, even the McCain campaign have admitted that Palin's strategy was "dangerous", so it's simply ludicrous to attempt to portray the woman who employed those tactics as somehow being hit below the belt by unscrupulous politicians on the left.
4. I’ve had this running thought all day, perhaps because I was watching it on TV in HD for the first time, that this is kind of like Ben Kenobi letting Darth Vader strike him down.The only problem with this theory is that there are many other rumours as to why Sarah Palin is standing down, and none of them relate to her children:
Many political observers in Alaska are fixated on rumors that federal investigators have been seizing paperwork from SBS in recent months, searching for evidence that Palin and her husband Todd steered lucrative contracts to the well-connected company in exchange for gifts like the construction of their home on pristine Lake Lucille in 2002. The home was built just two months before Palin began campaigning for governor, a job which would have provided her enhanced power to grant building contracts in the wide open state.The truth is that none of us truly know why she has stepped down. In the months to come that might start to become clearer, but it's insane at this moment in time to start to frame this as the left "attacking" Conservatives and their children. I personally think that Palin had gone as far as she was ever going to go. Taking part in the election had revealed her as woefully out of her depth. And recent articles, like the one in Vanity Fair, had only emphasised that point.
SBS has close ties to the Palins. The company has not only sponsored Todd Palin’s snowmobile team, according to the Village Voice’s Wayne Barrett, it hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004.
Though Todd Palin told Fox News he built his Lake Lucille home with the help of a few “buddies,” according to Barrett’s report, public records revealed that SBS supplied the materials for the house. While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin blocked an initiative that would have required the public filing of building permits—thus momentarily preventing the revelation of such suspicious information.
Just months before Palin left city hall to campaign for governor, she awarded a contract to SBS to help build the $13 million Wasilla Sports Complex. The most expensive building project in Wasilla history, the complex cost the city an addition $1.3 million in legal fees and threw it into severe long-term debt. For SBS, however, the bloated and bungled project was a cash cow.
The stakes in Iran have just been nudged up several degrees with a powerful regime hardliner labelling Mousavi, "an American agent" and demanding that he stand trial for the "terrible crimes" which he is said to have committed.
It's the clearest indication yet that the current regime see the democratic process as some form of coup and that, as happens when coups fail all over the world, the people who attempt the coup must be made an example of so that others know never to attempt to follow what they have done.Hossein Shariatmadari, editor-in-chief of the influential Kayhan newspaper, said Mousavi had committed "terrible crimes", including "murdering innocent people, holding riots, co-operating with foreigners and acting as America's fifth column", in pursuing his claims that last month's re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged.
The accusations - in a newspaper editorial - were the most ferocious yet from regime insiders and may serve notice that preparations are under way to arrest Mousavi and his main allies. Several hundred known reformists and pro-Mousavi supporters have already been detained since the election. The editorial also singled out the reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, who last week compared Ahmadinejad's re-election to a coup.
"An open court, in front of the people's eyes, must deal with the all the terrible crimes and clear betrayal committed by the main elements behind the recent unrest, including Mousavi and Khatami," Shariatmadari wrote. "Documents and undeniable evidence show that this mission was directed from the outside. All they did and said was in line with the instructions announced by American officials in the past."
With the street protests subdued, it sounds to me like Khamenei is about to put this matter to bed once and for all.While street protests have subsided following heavy deployment of security forces, Mousavi has continued to question the election and has urged his supporters not to lose heart. Last week he openly described Ahmadinejad's government as "illegitimate" and vowed that protests would carry on.
"A majority of the people, including me, do not accept (the government's) political legitimacy," he said on his website. "It is our historical responsibility to continue our protests and not to abandon our efforts to preserve the nation's rights. A ruling system that relied on people's trust for 30 years cannot replace this with security forces overnight."
One of the detained, Hossein Rassam, 44, the embassy's chief political analyst, has been charged with "acting against national security", a catch-all accusation often levelled against political activists. His lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, has said he expects him to stand trial. On Friday the EU summoned all Iranian ambassadors to its 27 member states to receive formal protests over the threat to try the employees.It's getting to the stage where Khamenei doesn't even care how ridiculous this looks, he's simply striking out at anyone who opposes him and sticking to the script that there is no protest other than the one's arranged by American and British influence.
Digby makes a great point regarding the recent removing of President Manuel Zelaya from Honduras by the military and the subsequent confession from the military that what they did was illegal. Their reasoning:
''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''Digby points out:
[...]So when the powers of state united in demanding his ouster, the military put a pajama-clad Zelaya on a plane and sent him to Costa Rica. The rationale: Had Zelaya been jailed, throngs of loyal followers would have erupted into chaos and demanded his release with violence.
''What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?'' he said. ``If we had left him here, right now we would be burying a pile of people.''
I think this is a natural outgrowth of the example the US has set over the past few years. People no longer believe that the rule of law is something they must adhere to as long as they can justify their actions as being done to "protect the country." I suppose it was always so, but America has made a fetish out of this excuse through this decade so I think it's taken on a new veneer of legitimacy. Certainly, it has made it impossible for any American leader to condemn this sort of thing with even the slightest bit of credibility.That's the defence that Dick Cheney and his daughter are currently spouting to justify torture - it works, it saved American lives! - as if this is more important than whether or not what they did was legal.
This is the paternalistic view espoused by Henry Hyde during the Iran Contra scandal, in which he claimed that if the executive broke the law for the good of the country it wasn't a crime. (He said this to justify his view that Reagan's breaking of the laws was ok while Clinton allegedly lying in a deposition was an impeachable offense.) I suppose this concept is also an outgrowth of Nixon's famous statement that if the president does it it's not illegal.
It was a remarkably muddled speech, full of that combination of folksy charm - and embarrassingly cutesy references to fridge magnets - which has marked her every public utterance.
And it says a lot about her astonishing ego that we are left wondering whether or not this is her preparing to run in 2012. Though, why someone throwing in the towel should show us that they are ready to lead the free world confuses me. I would think it shows the opposite.
But, her claims that, "America is now looking north to the future" makes me wonder whether or not she is actually insane enough to think that this is her time.
I note that even Republicans can't agree on what the Hell she is up to.
Some are writing this off as typical of the kind of behaviour which we have become used to from this most "maverick" of politicians:But coming during Independence Day, the move raised questions among some Republicans who accused her of attempting to escape falling poll numbers in Alaska as a series of economic problems and ethics investigations take their toll. A prominent Republican strategist, Ed Rollins, who directed Ronald Reagan's election campaign, said Palin had made a serious mistake. "She was a shooting star who dimmed in recent months and now she's crashed," he said.
Another Republican strategist, Tony Blankley, disagreed and said Palin appeared to have made a smart move to position herself for a run for president.
"It looks like she's moving down a path toward it," he said. "It frees her up. The normal rules don't seem to apply to her. She's a fascinating character who seems to do things her own way."
I have no idea whether she is stepping away from the spotlight or preparing to challenge Obama in 2012. It actually matters not a jot. An insanely egotistical incompetent is standing down. Should she decide that her decision to walk away from the promises she made to the people of Alaska makes her best placed to challenge Obama for the presidency of the United States in 2012, is all fun for the future.But other Republicans were more critical, including John Weaver, a long time confidant of McCain.
"We've seen a lot of nutty behaviour from governors and Republican leaders in the last three months, but this one is at the top of that," Weaver told the Washington Post. Palin's resignation was swiftly criticised as "flaky" by her Democratic opponents who said it was part of a pattern of "bizarre" behaviour. The Democratic National Committee said she is "leaving the people of Alaska high and dry ... or she simply can't handle the job now".
I'm really not sure what one is supposed to make of this latest footage of Jackson performing shortly before he died. Here, in Britain, many newspapers have been showing pictures of his last rehearsals - emphasising the fact that he looked fine - and expressing astonishment that he could have died shortly after these images were shot.
All I know is that heart attacks tend to be sudden things that strike without warning. The fact that the patient was engaging in strenuous activity beforehand makes me more likely to believe that he suffered from a heart attack, not less.
I sometimes wonder where newspapers are coming from when they push this stuff. A 50 year old man, who hasn't engaged in physical activity for years, suddenly embarks on a strenuous regime and his heart gives in. What, in that, is actually terribly suspicious?
I know they have to sell newspapers, but give us a break.
I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Krauthammer here. Palin is not a serious candidate for the Republicans, for the reasons which Krauthammer states.
"Palin is not a serious candidate for the presidency. She had to go home and study and spend a lot of time on issues in which she was not adept last year, and she hasn't. She has to stop speaking in clichés and platitudes. It won't work. It could work for eight weeks if you're the number two candidate, as she was last year. But even so, she got singed a lot in that campaign. You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you're running for the presidency."Her lack of knowledge on so many issues was simply staggering. She became a national laughing stock during an eight week campaign in which the press were held at arm's length.
The wingnuts leave me open mouthed as they describe Obama as being worse than Bernie Madoff.
Here, Mark Levin tells us how "foreign" and "alien" Obama's policies are and how he is basically imposing "a soft tyranny" on the Unites States. He then tells us how it was ridiculous to call the Bush presidency an imperial one, and states that Obama's presidency is much more imperial than the Bush one.
On what planet do you have to live on to believe that to be true? It's undeniable that Obama has claimed some powers which have upset many on the left, especially when it comes to holding some terrorist suspects without charge, but to claim that Obama is acting in a more imperial way than Bush is so false on it's face that it's actually laughable.
These lovers of liberty had no problem at all with Bush holding suspects without charge, eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, or the thousand other ways Bush claimed powers which were not granted to him by the Constitution. So, we really do have to enter Planet Wingnuttia to listen to this stuff with a straight face.
For example, Levin claims that Obama is out to destroy the American health system, "which most of us like". That's simply untrue. 76% of Americans favour a public option when it comes to health care.
But, as is so often true on Fox News, the facts don't matter. In fact, it's best if you simply pull them out of your ass.
Which Levin duly does by claiming that, "Here's the little secret. Conservatism now is on the ascendancy. The political pundits, the experts don't see it yet."
Their views of conservative ascendancy are as realistic as their visions of Obama's "soft tyranny". The American right wing deserve to be out of power for decades, because they really do sound like total lunatics.
Ha'aretz newspaper are leading with the headline "Netanyahu has Israelis' approval after first 100 days", emphasising the fact that Netanyahu enjoys popularity despite the fact that his government is on a collision course with the US.
And, although it is certainly true that a plurality of Israelis are backing Netanyahu's position, the numbers are far tighter than that headline would suggest.
The respondents gave Netanyahu's cabinet a barely passing grade of 5.6 points out of 10. Forty percent said the cabinet was not leading Israel in the right direction, while 37 percent said it was.I find it staggering that such a large number of Israelis support actions which are clearly illegal under international law, but I suppose - when the government themselves are the people proposing the action - then the populace must presume that the proposed action is perfectly legal.
Forty-six percent of respondents said Israel should continue construction in the West Bank even if this causes a confrontation with the U.S., and 44 percent said the opposite.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday asked Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu to impose a "total freeze" on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.Europe, no doubt encouraged by the stance of Obama, is no longer willing to turn a blind eye to Israel's expansionism. So, the figures Ha'aretz are quoting are perhaps slightly misleading as they concentrate on Netanyahu's actions only in relation to the United States. The truth is that the whole of Europe appear to be planning to line up against Netanyahu's stance.However, the hawkish leader, on his first visit to Europe since taking office in April, replied that "normal life" goes on amid international pressure for direct talks with the Palestinians.
"The president of the republic called on Israel to immediately take all possible measures to encourage confidence" in its talks with the Palestinians, "beginning with the total freeze of settlement activities," a French presidency statement said.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
