From:

Head of State

http://tinyurl.com/6lbfdv

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Palinism: Politics as The Content-Free Violation of Expectation

What is Palinism?

What is it about?

What policies?

What ideas?

What positions?

Even in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, while no doubt many were motivated by regional partisanship, local prejudices, and "the measure" of the candidate, one suspects that at least a rough rendering of the issues--secession vs. Union, free vs. enslaved--was carried in and animated the crowds.

Now, it is pure reaction to pattern. To one impulse expectation--the bland suited form--violated by the provocation of another impulse: a novel one. Irrespective of qualifications--blind to them, the freedom of being purposely so-- the impulse simply feels new, gleeful, aggressive--it simply feels good.

We have reached the content-free phase of American politics.

A form, an image--glasses, hair, a voice, what it suggests--is enough. She could be speaking the words to the airport timetable, the swearing-in speech of Ferdinand Marcos, the ingredients of a box of Sizzlean-- the image, the sound, and the gathering impulse, the bare stirring from dull lack of novelty--is sufficient to awaken the crowds to angry perturbence at...the stimulus to be perturbed, and the bare sense of actual directed action and purpose that comes with doing so.

Palin herself wears a glazed, slightly confused look in her eyes--bewildered at what it is that has unleashed this roar, this approbation. Being used to herself, and having been among those who are well used to her, she is unaware of the novelty that her mere form releases in the dazed electorate, yearning for a pretext for expression. Soon, she'll believe it herself.



And, after all, isn't that what democracy is all about? The ability to choose to decide without knowledge? Better yet, to choose your knowledge, irrespective of fact, in correspondence with the liberating, confirmation-free impulse?

This is what today's moment stands for.

These are our satisfactions and securities in this golden age.

Cite:

Head of State

http://tinyurl.com/6lbfdv

If Palin now claims Monegan was fired for insubordination, how can she possibly be claiming that she offered him another job before firing him?

This reeks of after-the-fact excuse-making. Here, all of the excuses contradict one another.

From the CNBC interview (’What does a VP do?’ video), Palin said Monegan was fired because Palin wanted “new direction” regarding “bootlegging and alcohol abuse problems in our rural villages..”

NOTHING about insubordination. This smells very bad.

Watch it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oro2Yh9HoEM&feature=related

Palin: “And it’s cool. I want them to ask me the questions. I don’t have anything to hide. And um, didn’t do anything wrong there. And it is a Governor’s prerogative — a right — to fill that cabinet with members whom she or he feels will do best for the people whom we are serving. So I look forward to any kind of investigation or questions being asked, ’cause, got nothing to hide.”

[Why did you fire him]: Palin: “I never tried to fire a former brother-in-law who’s been divorced from my sister for quite some time. No, it was the Commissioner that we were seeking more results, more action to fill, uh, vacant trooper positions, to deal with bootlegging and alcohol abuse problems in our rural villages especially. Um, just needed some new direction, a lot of new energy in that position. That is why the replacement took place there of the Commissioner of public safety. It had nothing to do with an estranged brother-in-law — a divorce that had happened some years ago.”

As noted above, If Palin has nothing to hide...

Repeat as necessary.

Do you reckon that Caribou Barbie will be asked at the VEEP debate about any of the many scandals infesting her tenure as governor of Alaska? I'm not holding my breath; the questioners must be "respectful" and properly "deferential".

As I mentioned in the other thread, the McCain campaign, after thinking about it for a week or so, came up with this new explanation because it gives them a "two-fer".

(1) They offer an alternate explanation of the crime, er, action.

(2) They re-inforce the theme that Palin is such a darned mavericky reformer that she fired a guy because he was seeking earmarks behind her back! (Why, the nerve!)

At this point, the McCain/PlainLyin campaign has made its decision. This is their story and they're sticking to it. They and all their surrogates will repeat this talking point until we've heard it a hundred times, and they're betting that the mainstream media will just get tired of asking about it.

I'd give it a better than even chance of working, too.

-- ARG

Ok... the story line keeps changing here. Where have we heard that before? Iraq? mcSame! And his Lady mcSame in Waiting!

She doesn't remind me of Dick Cheney at all. Whatever you say about the Vice President, he's very smart! This woman brings to mind Bernie Kerik: dumb, having a sense of entitlement that knows no bounds and zero judgment. If she ever becomes President we'll look back on W with much fondness than, with W at the helm, we look back on Ronald Reagan.

I suspecrt this is nearly pointless, but ..... Is it tooo difficult to imagine that Palin might have responded to early inquiries in general statements because at that point nothing more needed to be said. Did you really expect her to hang all Monegan's (and Wooten's) laundry out there for the world to see? What would have been the point. More of the details were known locally, but why broadcast them nationally? Even in the broad statements given in the initial interview there is consistency with the later revealed details. Admittedly, this became very much politicized when Palin was selected by McCain. Does that surprise anyone given the tenor of the current political debate, ably demonstrated by some of the comments here.

The fact remains that Palin filed an ethics complaint against herself and waived the confidentiality of the proceeding (which she was entitled to under state law). The fact also remains that the legislative "investigation" has become politicized and surely there is no surprise there. It is politics as war - a ready tactic by the left. Ask Alinsky's ghost. I plead no strong case for McCain, but the stench of hypocrisy and double standards by those weilding the hatchet on Palin's reputation is sometimes humorous .... in a dark, desparate, gallows kind of way.

This contemptible woman and her redneck husband are completely full of shit. They have no more claim to a presence in presidential politics than Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye would have had. Can we erase her from the media/political landscape ASAP? She needs to become a footnote, after the made-for-TV movie about her is completed.

I hate to say this, but all you get by trying to pursue this story is to fall into the trap laid down my McLame via the Rove playbook.

We saw exactly this during the runup to Iraq: lie, lie, lie, and while some tiny faction of the press is fact-checking and catching up to your last lie, tell three more lies. Any retractions, corrections, or clarifications will be "old news" four days down the road, buried on Page B-13, and the only thing The People will remember is the lie that was on the national news, and it will be treated by them as the truth.

Sorry, Dr. Falken, the only winning move is not to play the game. Enough Sarah Palin!

I can see Russia from my house!

Reason 1 - I fired him because he wasn't doing his job curbing alcohol abuse and bootlegging.
Reason 2 - I didn't fire him. He resigned to take on another job to curb alcohol abuse and bootlegging.
Reason 3 - I fired him because he was insubordinate and wanted to go around my back and prevent sex crimes against children.
Reason 4 - I dunno. What sounds good, Tucker?

Among other smelly facts about SP...five colleges in five years??? Has anybody got the hot skinny on Caribou Barbie's excellent college adventures?

She's dancing as fast as she can as the media shoot at the ground beneath her feet.

I know Obama is focusing on McCain, but they are going to have to fight this thing through the media.
The Republicans already have the jump. Once Monegan starts talking to the press like he did last night on Maddow's show the tide will shift.

What is it with Sarah Palin and sexual assault crimes? Always that connection: going back to the Wasilla rape-kit fee days. It's almost like she's in favor of these activities, given the pattern. What's for women to like here? Help me figure it out.

Ah ... Duck Stab. I think I'll go for, oh, a couple of hundred McCain points. Just think what would happen for a full-fledged McCain supporter!! But really. Do any of the commenters hear listen to themselves? They are extraordinary caricatures of gasbag buffoonery. Facts? Don't give a d**n. Any sort of reasoned argument? Don't give a d**n. Stringing together two coherent sentences in a row? Don't give a d**n. Character assassination? Slander? Mind-boggling non-sequiters? Plain old bargain-basement appeals to gutter politics? Now, by g*d.... that's the breakfast of champions !!

The McCain/Queen Palin of earmarks new take on the Trooper-gate scandal is much ado about nothing.

State senator French may head the group looking into the matter and he may he tipped his hand on his opinion. However, as I understand the situation, the investigator is completely independent of the group. So whatever preconceived opinions the members of the group may or may not have is nothing more than an exercise in jerking off.

When the investigator has completely his inquiries and submits his report to the panel, then the panel can review what was uncovered, come to a decision, and take appropriate action.

For Queen Palin of Earmarks and McCain to claim the investigation is tainted, they have to prove how it could be tainted if the panel has yet to review the evidence being gathered. State Senator French is but one of five members on the panel.

LOL! it immediately rings of that political gloss/lipstick that comes out of Repulsive's spin. You know, where there all like:

"i couldn't have been at that meeting hearing those things because i was baking cupcakes for a nearby orphanage. I realize that my documented presence at the compound may seem odd but it is simply the closest kitchen i have access to, Orphans, like any decent American, like their cupcakes warm and fresh!"

So she is firing him for seeking pork barrel money because she is so amazingly against it and maverick! But then the LOL factor hits like Brits because the only thing that they could link to reality was his attempt to get money for the out of control sex offenses. I mean... LOL! SOOO fucking guilty! It's not like Repulses aren't aware of this glaring puke stain, it's simply the best they have to go with in this situation. LOL!
'Busy baking cupcakes for my pedophile club.'

Hahah! This is so funny on McCain inventing the Blackberry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCLO3lNP6A

How can you tell when Sarah Palin is lying?

Her lips are moving . . .