Anyone also not going to be surprised when the GOP continues to endlessly parrot that she's a hunter despite the evidence to the contrary?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, but seriously, finding it hard to care one way or another. Unless we're worried she is going to shoot someone in the face while in office. Thats the bar we're looking at Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Was there anyone that could picture that woman legitimately hunting? Let's take into consideration what real hunting frequently entails, and leave the guns and shooting out of it for a minute:
1. Being out in the woods when it's fifteen below, far, far away from any toilets. 2. Mummy bags. (No, really. Try to imagine Sarah Palin in a mummy bag.) 3. Coffee that's thick as a brick. 4. Touching dead animals, or nearly-dead animals.
So...yeah.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Several TV commentators have noted the fact that all of the stuff Palin is doing on her show, she appears to be doing for the very first time.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: 1. Being out in the woods when it's fifteen below, far, far away from any toilets. 2. Mummy bags. (No, really. Try to imagine Sarah Palin in a mummy bag.) 3. Coffee that's thick as a brick. 4. Touching dead animals, or nearly-dead animals.
5. Sitting in comfortable silence for hours at a time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could have expected her to have been a hunter, yes. There's outfitting tours everywhere — my mother is part of one in Jackson Hole in the summer — where you can pay a lot of money to be part of a caravan that goes out and gets you into the wilderness with a guide who will eventually bag you an elk or something. Any amateur nob can do something like this and give themselves a tenuous qualification as a 'hunter.'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh gee, just watched the video. Yes, she's a nob. Daddy's even reloading the gun for her between shots.
Lol.
I wish palin was just boring as opposed to being a comedy of errors and hilarious revelations. That way, she'd just fade away.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
"Dad, does it kick?"
Does the hunting rifle kick...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sad. I don't hunt, and have never shot at anything that was alive, but I did teach shooting at summer camp. Just a couple of hours of training taught me more than she apparently knows. What's even more crazily sad is how obvious a fake she is, and how it doesn't *ever* seem to matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it does, it's made it so that alaskans themselves are largely over her. they have neither been impressed with her shortcomings nor her abandoning post mid-stream.
anyway.
the episode in full is even more mind-boggling. Her 70+ year old dad is tasked with carrying, loading, and chambering the rifle for her on this trip, but neither of them sighted the rifle, and he even used the rifle as a walking stick en route. And it really is a varmint rifle. and she has no trigger discipline. finger went straight on with the second (sighted) rifle. asdflhjsjfkhslafh
really this shouldn't matter much but ffs she described herself as a 'lifelong hunter' and an 'avid moose hunter.' does it kick. ahahahaha.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, I don't see why she can't load her own gun. That seems needlessly girly, needing her daddy to help with everything. A baby could load that thing. And yes, she keeps her finger on the trigger even while she's moving around and rearranging herself. That's so dangerous.
I loved that the subtitles translated her dad's whisper of 'I don't want to talk too loudly' as 'I don't want to talk too loud'. He's obviously not being folksy enough.
She's still a better shot than Dick Cheney, though. She didn't actually hit any humans.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well, I don't see why she can't load her own gun. That seems needlessly girly, needing her daddy to help with everything.
a sullivan reader:
quote:Well as I am a part of the Alaska hunting community, I forced myself to watch last night's episode of SPA. I wanted to see how Alaska hunting was portrayed, and particularly how Alaskan women hunters were portrayed.
One thing is patently obvious to any real hunter: Sarah Palin is a poseur; she is not at all familiar with a bolt action rifle. As far as real Alaskan women hunters, lest viewers think otherwise, no woman hunter I know does not operate her own bolt when extracting the brass and inserting a new cartridge. Very odd to see her dad operate the bolt for her as she fired all those bullets downrange. I have my doubts she actually killed that caribou with the other rifle, but we'll never know.
Rifle scopes can sometimes be bonked, a rifle dropped on rocks etc, to where they do go off sight. But there was no indication anything like that happened with Sarah's rifle.
And when they do go off sight, often it's a matter of inches up or down or left or right, and shooting at a broadside caribou from that distance as Sarah was, it is more likely to wound the animal than completely miss it when aiming at the shoulder/lung area.
On top of that, when a rifle scope does go off and needs to be sighted in again, one doesn't take something that small (a 10" diameter paper plate in this case) and put it downrange as a target to check the sighting. Missing something that small doesn't really prove anything ... if the rifle scope really was off, it could be six inches off left or right or up or down and still miss the plate, but would still have hit the caribou in the lung/shoulder area. It could be ten inches off and would still have hit the caribou. For Sarah to completely miss that caribou at that range would mean the scope would have to be waaaay off. That just isn't a very likely scenario with today's modern equipment. And taking that (supposed) final shot with the other rifle, when the caribou was no longer broadside (which is the much preferred shot because it provides a much large killing zone) but facing directly toward Sarah ... I don't know any hunter who after missing so many times would then choose to take that kind of shot at such a smaller target. It just doesn't add up.
Neither does a 72 year old man walk "four or five miles" from camp on that tundra - which is really undulating ankle-twisting tussocks - as they claimed during the episode, then walk the same distance back. A ten mile hike on that tundra with a loaded pack is a feat for someone young and physically fit. I'm not sure why they chose to lie about that, certainly the camera crew also could not walk that distance carrying their equipment. But that's "reality" television for you. Any hunter who watched that episode should come away with the knowledge that Sarah Palin the "hunter" was a big bold lie.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Having lived in Montana and thus known many serious hunters, there are few things as despised by serious hunters as people "posing" as serious hunters.
I'm not a hunter myself, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Caribou have bolted after the first gun shot? Maybe animals in Alaska have less experience with humans and gun fire than in the lower forty eight but I can't imagine a wild animal standing still while someone fired poorly aimed shot after poorly aimed shot at it. In Montana, the slightest sound will spook an elk.
Also, no one I've ever heard of would go rifle hunting dressed in full camo. It's suicide. Deer, elk, moose and (I presume) caribou, can't see color which is why hunter safety orange "camo" is sufficient to hide you from them, but not from other hunters. Maybe the population density in Alaska is so low that they do things different there but to me it was just one more unrealistic thing done for the camera that demonstrated the whole thing was posed.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Having lived in Montana and thus known many serious hunters, there are few things as despised by serious hunters as people "posing" as serious hunters.
I'm not a hunter myself, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Caribou have bolted after the first gun shot? Maybe animals in Alaska have less experience with humans and gun fire than in the lower forty eight but I can't imagine a wild animal standing still while someone fired poorly aimed shot after poorly aimed shot at it. In Montana, the slightest sound will spook an elk.
Also, no one I've ever heard of would go rifle hunting dressed in full camo. It's suicide. Deer, elk, moose and (I presume) caribou, can't see color which is why hunter safety orange "camo" is sufficient to hide you from them, but not from other hunters. Maybe the population density in Alaska is so low that they do things different there but to me it was just one more unrealistic thing done for the camera that demonstrated the whole thing was posed.
So to sum it up, Palin is doing it wrong? If that's it, I get it :D
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The elk spooking thing threw me off. When her dad was like "don't worry he's not going anywhere," my thought was "really? did he not hear the multiple gun shots that echoed through the hills?"
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
He might be a team player willing to take a few shots.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
See, the Elk was a Palin/Tea-Party backer, and well, the right was blocked by trees, and you know that such fine conservatives just can't move to the left no matter what.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To be fair 'does it kick' could be charitably viewed as a Watsonian-FOIL sort of question to educate her viewers but I haven't watched the clip in full to see if she was being honest or directing it to the camera.
I would've seen it as vagely impressive had she actually taken secret hunting courses and memorized NRA gunsafety rules and repeated them while demonstrating them in full seriousness and following them to the letter.
At least she would have displayed the willingness to see her own shortcomings and correct them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The elk spooking thing threw me off. When her dad was like "don't worry he's not going anywhere," my thought was "really? did he not hear the multiple gun shots that echoed through the hills?"
The caribou realized that it wasn't cheney and honestly just didn't expect to ever get hit. Then, he was bagged via creative editing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: 1. Being out in the woods when it's fifteen below, far, far away from any toilets. 2. Mummy bags. (No, really. Try to imagine Sarah Palin in a mummy bag.) 3. Coffee that's thick as a brick. 4. Touching dead animals, or nearly-dead animals.
5. Sitting in comfortable silence for hours at a time.
You know, as anti-feminist as this is going to sound, I feel really bad for a group of men that she might attempt to join on a hunting trip. Can't you imagine them all sitting around quietly, intently, relaxed and yet alert at the same time...
...and then she starts yammering.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:To be fair 'does it kick' could be charitably viewed as a Watsonian-FOIL sort of question to educate her viewers but I haven't watched the clip in full to see if she was being honest or directing it to the camera.
It would be great if this were true. But at one point her dad's friend (or whoever that guy was) has to reassure her that she'll be okay even if the gun kicks, because she's sounding so panicky about the idea. The vague possibility of minor bruising! Oh no!
I suppose it's a good sign that she actually knows that guns can kick.
I can't help but feel that someone who is that bad a shot shouldn't actually be allowed to hunt until she has done more target practice. The most likely scenario is that she would wing the creature, which would then run off and die in agony three days later - I still don't quite believe that she hit that animal, even on the fifth or sixth try, with a perfect kill shot.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not a hunter myself, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Caribou have bolted after the first gun shot? Maybe animals in Alaska have less experience with humans and gun fire than in the lower forty eight but I can't imagine a wild animal standing still while someone fired poorly aimed shot after poorly aimed shot at it. In Montana, the slightest sound will spook an elk.
I don't know about caribou but I have a little experience with moose. When I was 14 I shot a cow moose. The first shot was about 4 inches away from it's brain, towards the front of the face. (My dad told me to shoot it in the head so we wouldn't waste any of the meat.) I was expecting it to run away and we'd have to spend the next few hours trying to find it, but it WALKED away from us fairly slowly. I shot it a few more times before finally bringing it down but it never ran away or anything. I don't know if caribou act like this or not.
Edited to correct a typo.
[ December 07, 2010, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Eisenoxyde ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I know from experience that moose aren't at all skittish of humans. They are more likely to charge you than flee. You can walk right up to them in the wild (if you aren't afraid of being stomped to death). I've been told the only hard part of moose hunting, is getting the permit. This is because a healthy adult moose evolved in an environment where it has no natural predators.
Elk and deer behave very differently and will usually flee at the first sign of humans. They are preyed on by wolves, as are Caribou, and running is their primary means of defense. It would be extremely unusual for an elk to just stand there, framed against sky, while people shot at it. As an elk hunter, you have to figure you have only one shot. If you don't take the animal down with that, you are unlikely to get a second chance, let alone a third, forth, fifth and sixth.
My experience with Caribou is extremely limited. I've only seen them on my one cycling trip through the Yukon, but based on that I'd expect them to behave a lot more like elk than moose. They are smaller than elk (much smaller than moose), they live in herds and they are quick to flee. The behavior of Palin's hunting part suggests that this is what they expect. They talk about being downwind, getting down and staying quiet. Why in the world would they be concerned about talking quietly if the Caribou doesn't even walk off after half a dozen shots? That Caribou, that is so nicely framed against the sky for the camera, would only need to take two steps backward to disappear completely from their sight.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
So what was actually going on with this beastie? Was this crazy editing, a tame/tied up/stuffed caribou, or did the caribou just really want a Darwin Award?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is certainly some creative editing going on, but beyond that its hard to tell.
Posted by MelaniKari (Member # 12433) on :
I don't claim to be a hunter and I don't think she is either. But it is part of her lifestyle. How could anyone think otherwise? I mean she lives in Alaska and even if she is not hunting/fishing monthly like a maniac (my husband) she is living with it. I shoot my deer with one shot AND I have my husband load for me And I do not like a gun that has a big kick. We can be girlie and outdoorsy ya know.
Who wants to be married to a moose? I know plenty of outdoorsmen who would love to be married to a woman like Sarah. I simply do not understand the animosity. Haven't you watched other hunting shows? Some of those are done on game preserves and equally staged. When you have a camera along you don't want to waste the crews time.
She used to live near to where I live and her father was friends with a friend of my husbands they really are a hunting family. AND hunting families have girlie girls in them who have brains and can run businesses and corporations and even states!
I like her and her gutsy style- why be like everyone else?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't claim to be a hunter and I don't think she is either.
Oh come on, how short is your memory. During the 2008 election she made a huge deal about how she was a Moose hunter. You certainly have the right to like her if you choose, but have the guts yourself not to twist the facts to justify your opinion.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
From what I know after her little look-alike "special video" Palin was ruined ever so more.
I think the big thing here is that her hunting was faked to make it seem like she is all great and such ._., but since I don't like killing animals or even the attempt she just makes herself a rock in a hardplace
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Now my head hurts.
Posted by MelaniKari (Member # 12433) on :
My memory is very short, I try not to get all up in arms over politics though I certainly stay true to my ideals. I just do not understand the need to pick on a person for being what she is. If she is a wannabe so what? At least the things she wants to be are pretty cool.
To strive to look the best that you can, have a good education and make a difference in the political system where you live are all worthy goals. Doing it with the ideals of family and good health through eating off the land are only plusses in my book. I am not trying to twist facts I am just saying things as I see them. So since she claims to be hunter does not mean she is an awesome one. I do know other people who claim to be hunters and rarely come hoe with anything to show for it.
I myself am spoiled because my husband provides for the needs of our family quite well. We do not buy beef at all ( with the exception of preformed hamburgers from Costco! ) since we always have venison of some sort in the freezer along with game birds and fish.
Really I am new to this site and was just trying to get the stinking system to let me post to the writing forum. It won't. So I wrote here just to verify that I was really logged in as it said.
I still get the message that my username does not exist when I try to post my introduction. So try to be nice to me I'm new at this... I will try to refrain from offering my opinions among democrats in the future Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I still get the message that my username does not exist when I try to post my introduction. So try to be nice to me I'm new at this... I will try to refrain from offering my opinions among democrats in the future [Smile]
That would be unfortunate, I'm sorry you are getting such a rough introduction into the community.
As for myself, welcome to Hatrack, I do hope you will stick around.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
MelaniKari, welcome to Hatrack! You can tell us a little about yourself in this thread, or I will start one for you and link back in a minute. [Here you go.]
You'll find that there is quite a diverse lot here, including (but not limited to***) Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, parents, children, lifelong hermit [possibly plural], atheists, Christians, Jews (Orthodox and non-Orthodox, I think), [person, or possibly people] who raise goats, tax preparer [possibly plural], woman [likely not plural] who has paid her way through foreign countries by belly dancing, lactaction consultant [likely plural], traffic safety expert [probably only one], physicians, lawyers, barista [likely plural], and so on and so on.
Any and all of these groups are made up of people who occasionally have bad days. Some, too, are just cranky or rabble-rousers for other reasons, while some are pure sweetness and light (burping a delicate perfume of allergy-free fragrance) -- no group has a monopoly on either, and most fall somewhere in between.
I'm sorry this was a bit of a rocky welcome. It's been a tough crowd of late, and you hit on, er, a Popular Topic. *grin
----------
[***I left out all the best people just so they could have the honor of adding themselves to the list in a highlighted way. Chime in below! ]
[ December 08, 2010, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:people who raise goats
Name two active posters that do this. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I kid, I kid.
(ha!)
Not you and beverly? I think of her as an integral part of HR, though I guess I haven't seen her here for awhile.
No, I got it: you, mr_porteiro_head, count as two. Your shadow is long, and the significance of your fame is mighty. Two mighty for words.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Also, I think there are some other singletaries in there, but nevermind. It's an artistic list.
<.< >.>
---
Edited: I edited. Also, note to self: You promised me you weren't going to make any more of those lists. It is always trouble. Why do you do this to me? Why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Now I'm offended.
*throws down glove*
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
See ... trouble.
--- Edit: And next there will be pool.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Melani, this forum is a place where the members talk about all sorts of things. We analyze and over-analyze anything we can get our hands on. Pop culture and politics are two popular topics of conversation. And Sarah Palin now fits into both of those topics. She has been portraying herself in a very particular way to the American public and the events on this show of hers apparently indicate that this portrayal has been embellished at the very least, and flat out fabricated at the worst. It's a natural topic for our members to discuss. Sarah Palin in general is a particularly contentious topic due to what many liberals see as hypocritical and/or ignorant stances on a broad range of issues.
Welcome to the forum, I hope you stick around and take part in some of the myriad of conversations that go on here! But I should warn you that if you choose to take part in a thread on Sarah Palin, those whose who disagree with her personality and her policy will make their voices heard. When we disagree with each other here we try to stick to discussing/attacking the ideas of another poster, rather than their character, and I apologize in advance for anyone that engages in the latter. It's not what Hatrack is about.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
mr_porteiro_head, you think you were offended? I accidentally listed Dro as "likely single." dkw is going to have my soft underbelly for dinner.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Mmmm.... Soft underbelly....
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I come with a wee bit o cracklin.'
*modest
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Melani, I don't mean to be grumpy, but your post just sent up warning signs.
Lets take a look at the first paragraph:
quote:My memory is very short, [Smile] I try not to get all up in arms over politics though I certainly stay true to my ideals. I just do not understand the need to pick on a person for being what she is. If she is a wannabe so what? At least the things she wants to be are pretty cool.
You start out by saying your Memory is short and you don't get up in arms about politics.
My memory is long and some politicians, especially those I see as fake, self-serving, and petty--do get me up in arms.
You then counter your comment about not getting up in arms by saying you stand by your ideals. So do I. And when some one like Governor Palin attacks those ideals I try to rationally discover the flaws in her arguments.
You say you don't understand why someone would attack another person for being what they are. I don't attack people for being what they are. If you are Homosexual, Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, or a mix of all or none, I won't attack you for what you are.
However, what you do is something that deserves rebuke if what you do is wrong.
Some of what Governor Palin does is wrong.
You say, "She's a wanna-be." She is not a "wanna-be" she is a faker, a fraud of a hunter.
You ask, "So what?"
The answer is that she is doing this faking, this fraud, in order to convince other hunters, NRA folks, and people who take there gun rights seriously that she is one of them. She is doing this fraud to get votes.
And she does so in such an obvious and armature way that it is an insult.
So to us, when a leading political contender parades herself on TV, and does so poorly and with an obvious attempt to defraud the viewers into thinking she is something she isn't, I will negatively comment on that.
Your responses were very polite--for which I thank you. They were also not very convincing, seemingly to say, "She isn't doing any harm--let her get away with this small fraud."
It was exactly something one of her people would say.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...due to what many liberals see as hypocritical and/or ignorant stances on a broad range of issues.
Also what some conservatives and independents see. Not just liberals, thank you.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
You know, I don't hate Sarah Palin at all. She's not in any danger of taking over my country (she can't even see it from her house), so I have no reason to loathe her. I worry about her ideas a bit, and think she could stand to read up on some stuff. But that's as far as it goes.
I am rather disappointed with her, though, having seen the video in this thread. The idea of a tough, independant outdoorswoman/crack shot/etc, was the one distinctive point of her for me. And she is clearly absolutely not that. Which is kind of a shame.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...due to what many liberals see as hypocritical and/or ignorant stances on a broad range of issues.
Also what some conservatives and independents see. Not just liberals, thank you.
good point, didn't mean to leave out reasonable people of all stripes! I sometimes forget how many votes Mccain lost because of her.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yup. He certainly lost mine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
John McCain lost my vote because of the way he treats women. In part because of the way he tried to use Palin, but mostly because of the horrendous ways he has treated his wives.
--------
Palin's an entertainer! She quit her position of elected power in order to become a well-paid entertainer. She's not a policitian, and she's not a hunter, and she's not any of those other things.
That's not a slam. It's what happened. And she is now a well-paid entertainer. It's nice to see people achieve their goals.
Until she is actually running for something again, I will the exact same amount attention to her as I do to Sean Penn and Howard Stern.
Anyone doing anything else is just contributing to her being a well-paid entertainer. Her value to advertisers, which is where her money now comes from, comes from the number of eyeballs she draws, and every time someone pays attention to her, it's like dropping money in the cup.
------
It is weird to see people freaking about all the things she isn't. She's on TV! She's an performer! And David Copperfield doesn't use real magic and Natalie Portman isn't really a professional ballerina and Lauren Conrad doesn't really say dramatic lines at parties and then walk out. It's all entertainment, and if you're paying attention, then the performers are doing their jobs. Follow the money.
quote:She is doing this fraud to get votes
Nope. She is not running for anything, and she quit the job she ran for. Until/unless she is, she's doing it so people watch her show, talk about her, and she gets paid for collecting eyeballs to watch advertisements. It's working fantastically, and you're contributing to it.
[ December 09, 2010, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
katharina: Maybe people suspect (and have a strong argument) that Sarah Palin *is* in fact running for public office and that all of these jobs she is taking as an "entertainer" is to get her out in the zeitgeist so that when she is officially running she will be able to run off that instead of the memory of her bid with John McCain.
If she is indeed going the route of demagoguery, it makes complete sense to laugh off and criticize what she is doing now, so she never develops anything that resembles a base.
I'm not saying follow her every move and constantly denigrate her whenever you get the chance, of course that plays into her hands because she can use the martyr card, but if she is going to portray herself as one thing, and be another, it's important that fact is broadcast as loud and clear as what she wants said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People can speculate all they want.
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
But Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and Bono have never been a serious contender for VP of the US.
I'm a little flabbergasted that you insist she's an entertainer and not a politician.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And if it turns out that she's planning a run for office, is that even more brilliant? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
False Equivilency.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the point your making.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then you phrased it badly, because it started out "you are".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... You think you're discrediting her, but your anger is legitimizing.
Yeah, no on both counts. Your assumptions are pretty off.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Insulting that you're a Palin supporter, or insulting because you have poor arguments?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll let you two talk amongst yourselves. This bitter, nasty hatefest part of the conversation isn't worth my attention.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
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
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Talk about Palin, not about me.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Talk about Palin, not about me.
---
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Talk about Palin, not about me.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
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!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JB, Who's talking about kat?
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: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.
What you are missing, is that no one here is mad at her for not being a crack hunter. People are disgusted by her for having built up an image as a a crack hunter when she was running for VP when she obviously is not.
David Copperfield has never claimed to be magic in a political campaign so the analogy is completely inappropriate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Palin is not running for anything. Until she files, she is not in a political campaign.
She is courting attention and wealth and hosting a "reality" show. And succeeding wildly at it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No, People are displease that she told obvious lies during her last campaign. The fact that she is not officially compaigning right now is irrelevant. She deliberately mislead people during her last campaign. People have a right to be displease when it is revealed that a former candidate deliberately mislead people during their campaign even if that person is no longer a candidate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The election was two years ago, and she lost. People aren't over it yet?
Rangel was censured for corruption and that story was out of the papers in less than a week. Lies about abuses of power. While in office. Accepting bribes. Actual corruption. And no one cares. Sure - why would they? He isn't a beautiful woman.
And with all the continued attention, Palin has her own television show and a bestselling book. Sounds like she's winning to me.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Katharina, the issue is that the Palin that is portrayed on the show contradicts what the Palin that was running for vice president said about herself. When she was a politician she said something. Now that she is an entertainer, it turns out to have been a lie. Whether the women ever runs for president has no effect on that. She is a very popular and polarizing figure, whether you want to call her an entertainer or not. People wanted to talk about it here. Again, Hatrack is a place where we talk about all sorts of things to death that many people in the outside world, and even many people at Hatrack find completely uninteresting. So what? I point this out because your original post actually spent the majority of time criticizing the very conversation that was being had, and was not about whether this was all in service for a presidential run. Your criticism seemed to be about why people would analyze the actions of an entertainer. I'm somewhat miffed at what you think people at Hatrack have been talking about for the last 10 years.
As for the second part, whether she actually runs for president or not, she is obviously not JUST an entertainer. She is a political figure. She was a governor. She ran for vice president. She does political commentary. She endorses candidates and raises money for candidates. Her character as an individual and whether she lies about aspects of her personality are important to the people who listen to her and take her political influence seriously, as evidenced by how other big name republicans treat her and talk about her. You can't deny she has massive influence in the political sphere, and thus the conversation in this thread is entirely relevant. Whether she's doing it so people will vote for her or whether it's so people will send her money and vote for who she wants them to doesn't seem like a terribly important distinction to me.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: JB, Who's talking about kat?
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.
You began talking about kat after The White Whale poorly worded a criticism that seemed more focused on her as opposed to her opinions. The conversation didn't totally shift to a poster back and forth, but I was summoned from the depths by a few posters.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Palin is not running for anything. Until she files, she is not in a political campaign.
If you have been reading this thread, you are certainly aware that this is a matter of some dispute. People usually begin campaigning for political office well before they officially announce their candidacy. There are plenty of legitimate reason to believe that Sarah Palin's reality show is part of a strategy to further a political career. There are also good arguments on the other side. It's an open question and people certainly are not out of line in reacting based on the belief that she has aspirations for political office. It is clearly a legitimate possibility.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Two years ago, and she lost. I don't buy the "anger over origin myths" story. It's not enough to explain the vehemence.
Seriously - Eliot Spitzer cavorted with prostitutes while legislating against them, and he was actually in office. He has a television show. He'd LOVE the attention Palin is getting.
His show doesn't get scoured with a fine tooth comb with people popping a blood vessel.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The election was two years ago, and she lost. People aren't over it yet?
What's to get over? I'm pleased she lost, I'm displeased that so many people still consider her a serious political contender. Google "Will Sarah Palin run for president" and you will see that there are in fact a very large number of people who think of her as a serious candidate for US President. I understand that you don't, I even hope you're right. But unfortunate, many do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Was Eliot Spitzer a candidate for VP? Has anyone even suggested he might run for president in 2010? Does he have a reality TV show?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:...a movement with this sort of leadership...
quote:...the people who listen to her and take her political influence seriously...
quote:...I'm displeased that so many people still consider her a serious political contender.
Now THAT - a wish that by destroying Palin's reputation, the power of the conservative movement she has associated herself with will dissolve - now that I believe is a effective and primary motivation for the invective.
If you have no effective argument against the ideals that are driving political action you don't like, ad hominem attack the leaders. That, too, will be sadly ineffective, because Palin isn't the idealogical leader.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Was Eliot Spitzer a candidate for VP? Has anyone even suggested he might run for president in 2010? Does he have a reality TV show?
Worse! He has a political talk show!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Now THAT - a wish that by destroying Palin's reputation, the power of the conservative that she has associated herself with dissolve - now that I believe is a effective and primary motivation for the invective.
That's not at all what I said. Please stop twisting my words and accusing me of saying things which I have in no way said nor implied.
I know many conservatives whose dislike for Palin far exceeds mine. If I were hoping dilute the power of conservatives, I'd be rooting for a Palin nomination. Look at the number of people in this thread alone who voted against McCain because of Palin.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Woman, yes. Beautiful?
Meh.
But regardless, I dislike Palin because of the things she says and does, not what she looks like.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Was Eliot Spitzer a candidate for VP? Has anyone even suggested he might run for president in 2010? Does he have a reality TV show?
Worse! He has a political talk show!
So what? How is this relevant to the arguement at hand. I'd never heard of Eliot Spitzer until you mentioned him in this thread. I can't be expected to research every hypocrit on the planet to insure that I criticize everyone who deserves it equally. No one can or will. The fact that there are people who deserve more criticism than they get has absolutely no relevance as to whether or not Sarah Palin does or does not deserve the criticisms she gets. Its a non-sequitur.
You are attacking people at hatrack with your accusations that we are motivated by misogyny and hatred of conservatism. No one here deserves that kind of attack and we would all appreciate it if you stopped.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Woman, yes. Beautiful?
Meh.
But regardless, I dislike Palin because of the things she says and does, not what she looks like.
Yeah, Palin is nowhere near beautiful to my taste, but I still agree with much of the criticism.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Woman, yes. Beautiful?
Meh.
But regardless, I dislike Palin because of the things she says and does, not what she looks like.
Agreed. She's not the type I consider attractive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Woman, yes. Beautiful?
Meh.
But regardless, I dislike Palin because of the things she says and does, not what she looks like.
Attractive women are also sometimes harder to criticize than ugly ones. That's a truth that stretches across genders- everybody wants to like a pretty face.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second. It's reasonable to criticize Palin on political grounds, currently, because very recently she was a major political factor in elections, Katharina.
That's very straightforward. You don't have to run for political office to be a political figure. It's also a strange argument to make that Palin isn't the ideological leader of the kinds of movements people are criticizing, given that she is incredibly popular with those movements. It really sounds like you're being deliberately obtuse here.
Sarah Palin is. among other things, political. She's not just a reality TV star-you can't just turn that kind of status on and off like that, or at least not expecting to be taken seriously. A person isn't just what their current job is. Who on Earth is treated that way, as though their current occupation is the sum-total of their existence? And she most certainly is one of the ideological leaders of, among other things, the Tea Party Movement, Katharina. These two things are so fundamental as to almost be facts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Kat, we can look at this from the other side. You mention Bono and some other liberal entertainers who may go into or have pushed politics and equate them with Governor Palin. You say that they are all "entertainers".
So how is Governor Palin an entertainer?
Does she sing? Dance? Act on the stage or in movies?
no.
She has not entertainment value I can decipher.
She doesn't have a sense of humor that I can find unless its a mean spirited attack on those she sees as her enemies. In fact she is extremely serious and takes everything extremely serious. Not a comment or complaint gets by her with out her taking it extremely serious and attacking those who disagree with her.
Definitely not a comedian.
So what kind of entertainer is she?
She is like all the other reality stars--she entertains us by being famous. She entertains us by being a reality TV star, even when she isn't doing her Alaska show.
I will grant you that she is a Reality TV star.
But how does the public get entertained by reality TV stars like Ozzie Ozborne and family? Like Snooki from Jersey Shores?
We make fun of them. We laugh at the silly mistakes and we curse the schemers on Survivor. We make jokes about them and point out their foibles.
That is how America treats its Reality TV Stars.
That is how we treated Governor Palin in this thread--ridiculing her reality TV performance.
Some conservatives have criticized Governor Palin for dragging the conservative message down to that level. Don't blame us for that. She should have known what she was getting herself into.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Talk about Palin, not about [my arguments about palin].
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second. It's reasonable to criticize Palin on political grounds, currently, because very recently she was a major political factor in elections, Katharina.
QFT. She is fundraising for and endorsing candidates, and she is making political stump speeches. That's being a politician. Appearing on TV or acting as an entertainer or "writer" doesn't alter that much. Churchill spent a goodly amount of his time as a public speaker, but nobody was ever under the illusion that he wasn't running for prime minister from the age of 25.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Two years ago, and she lost. I don't buy the "anger over origin myths" story. It's not enough to explain the vehemence.
:sigh: Even setting aside all the other behavior Palin engages in on a regular basis which embarrasses her state and the American people, she has given regular speeches and made scores of public comments which have been highly offensive, and disturbing to many people. I can call to mind specifically a speech she gave recently in which she crowed on and on about her fear and anger of "socialism" while she misconstrued and misrepresented what socialism was, what the actual politics of her opponents entailed, etc. People are vehemently opposed to her because, frankly, she continues to publicly represent some of the most idiotic, jingoistic, regressive political ideology in America. The fact that her stupidity seems not to be important to so many people is disturbing- but trust me, I dislike her for about 100 reasons before the fact that she's a "folksy lady." I recognize that as an affectation which is part and parcel to her whole outlook.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I try not to get all up in arms over politics though I certainly stay true to my ideals. I just do not understand the need to pick on a person for being what she is. If she is a wannabe so what? At least the things she wants to be are pretty cool.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)