Sarah Palin says that she felt ambushed when Katie Couric asked her what newspaper she read. This coming from a woman who shoots wolves from a helicopter!
That's not a joke, it's an x-ray of the conservative soul:
Implicit double-standard view of the world? Check!
Implicit sense of entitlement? Check!
Casual violence? Check!
Casual violence towards those helpless to fight back? Check!
Bottomless sense of victimhood? Check!
Utter cluelessness? Check!
Utter cluelessness about one's utter cluelessnes? Check!
And you thought conservatives didn't have souls!
No. That's vampires. And as any fan of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer knows, vampires are capable of seeking redemption.
Remember all the above. It's the key to understanding the conservative talk show rape obsession recently documented by Media Matters:
(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."
Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)
Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."
Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.
I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.
In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.
Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign campaign staffers.
Rasmussen emailed me this morning to let me know that Sarah Palin is way in touch with her own party. I mean, a full 59% of Republicans think that she share their values! Emphasis mine:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
Wow! Just 21% of Republicans think that Palin does not represent their values! That's, like, almost as good as Bob Dole! Back in 1996, just 19% of Republicans voted for either Clinton or Perot.
If McCain had been opposed by just 21% of his own party, then he would have only lost by another 3.8% to 7.7%!
And if Bush had been opposed by just 21% of his own party in 2004, he would have only lost Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio! He would hae still managed 213 electoral votes--that's like, pretty good!
Oh wait--I'm forgetting the 20% of Republicans who are undecided about Palin. Hmmm... maybe she isn't quite closing in on bob Dole's level of national viability yet.
During a three-hour tirade about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to transfer five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States for criminal prosecution, Rush Limbaugh attacked the "dangerous" "ideologue" Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who in a Fox News interview that day discussed his support of Holder's decision.
--If Democrats do lose a significant number of House seats in 2010, the chamber as a whole will shift to the right. However, given who will lose, the Democratic caucus will actually shift significantly to the left.
--Yey, there is lots of water on the Moon! That's great and all, but if you want something that will really excite you about potential human colonization of space, check out the new VASIMR rocket--it can travel to Mars in only 39 days! Best of all, it was actually designed to ferry people and goods back and forth to a permanent Moon base, and is already being tested on the international space station. The pieces are really falling into place...
--New Stargate Universe tonight-and the premier of the Prisoner on Sunday. Woo-hoo
It will be weeks, if not months, before the analysis of 2009's off year election results fade from the forefront of political commentary, particularly among conservatives. While the White House spin machine is content with downplaying the results as purely a function of local issues, conservatives have attempted to paint these contests as a referendum on the Obama Administration, or more bizarrely, the next step in "the American people taking back their country". Most seasoned political observers know that off year, special and mid-term elections are characterized by low voter turnout and that party activists play a much greater role in determining the outcome. Viewed through that prism, the 2009 contests fall clearly into the pattern of typical off year elections. Thus, the primary question is this: If the 2009 elections exhibit all of the characteristics of other off year elections, how can they logically be seen as a referendum on the Obama presidency or the opening volley in some great populist uprising. After all, if the American people are so disgusted with the Obama Administration, would the rising chorus of conservative opposition not propel them to action and would we not observe a significant up tick in voter turnout?
Analyzing the Gubernatorial races first, it is impossible to deny that local issues dominated. Democratic strategist Steve McMahon pointed out that property taxes and the increase in insurance rates, both of which are state level issues, are a big part of why Jon Corzine was not re-elected. While not directly involved, scandals played a role in Corzine's demise as well, culminating in last summer's roundup of a cast of characters from politicians to rabbis. Corzine's affiliation with the investment firm Goldman Sachs and his aloof political style did nothing to endear him to the people of New Jersey. As one NPR reporter put it: "Corzine never mastered the art of retail politics." Political columnist A.P. Stoddard pointed on November the 3rd that if Corzine lost it would not be Barack Obama's fault as in New Jersey; Obama had an approval rating in the vicinity of sixty percent in contrast to Corzine's thirty nine percent. In the end, Corzine wound up losing by four percentage points to Chris Christie.
In Virginia, the issues that Republican Bob McDonnell focused on were improving the state's economy, job creation and solving longstanding statewide transportation problems. Of these, only job creation could conceivably be linked back to the Obama Administration. While many voters are skeptical as to just how many jobs the Administration's stimulus has created, most people still believe that Obama inherited a difficult situation, the blame for which cannot be laid at the door of his White House. In contrast to McDonnell, the Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds was a relative unknown who struggled with name recognition till the very end.
What is notable about both races is that the Republican winners eschewed the currently fashionable conservative think tank groupthink, which prescribes a political philosophy that hews to the hard right. As you will recall, following the defeat in the 2008 election cycle, most of the outspoken conservative commentators and theorists claimed that when the G.O.P. moved to the center it lost elections and that future electoral victory could only come by moving further to the right, the further, the better. Neither of the winners in New Jersey or Virginia dwelled on aspects of the "Culture Wars" nor did they resort to the now hackneyed rant about "a slide toward European Socialism." Moreover, both Christie and McDonnell ran upbeat, politically moderate campaigns, devoid of the shrill histrionics that have come to dominate rightwing talk radio or the "political commentators" currently practicing their craft on Fox News. In contrast both Corzine and Deeds ran very negative campaigns to which the voting public now turns an increasingly deaf ear.
Another big issue that can't be ignored is voter turnout. Political writer Paul Loeb summarizes voter turnout as follows: "In exit polls, Virginia voters under 30 dropped from 21% of the 2008 electorate to 10% this year and from 17% to 9% in New Jersey. Minority voting saw a similar decline. In both states, over half the Obama voters of a year ago simply stayed home, more than a million people in both Virginia and New Jersey. With this collapse of the Democratic base, even relatively modest Republican turnout could carry the day, and did." That said if this off year election is characterized by such low turn out levels, how could conservatives make an argument that there is such a dramatic rejection of the Obama agenda? Were the races in New Jersey and Virginia truly a referendum on Obama? If exit polls are any indication, they apparently were not. Edison Research provided a view as to whether or not Obama was a factor in people's decision to vote by way of these exit poll results:
New Jersey:
Support for Obama - 19%
Oppose Obama - 20%
Obama not a factor - 60%
Virginia:
Support for Obama - 18%
Oppose Obama - 24%
Obama not a factor - 55%
Thus in both races over 70% of those who answered exit polls said that Barack Obama did not play a role in their getting out to vote in what were essentially local elections. So much for the idea that the results of this past election constitute a rejection of Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have only moved up since the August Town Hall Follies. Meanwhile, the G.O.P. is polling its lowest approval rating since polling began and only twenty percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party.
Let's now turn to New York's 23rd Election District, where a Republican has held the Congressional seat since 1871. It is in the 23rd, a district that has all of the demographics that favor Republicans, that the newly energized national Conservative movement chose to show just how effective it can be in both defeating a Democrat, upending a moderate Republican and turning the tide on Barack Obama. Prior to the election the district was besieged with conservatives from all over the country including volunteers from prominent conservative grass roots organizations like, The National Organization for Marriage, FreedomWorks, of Tea Party fame, and the Club For Growth, which spent one million dollars backing the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Such conservative luminaries like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who predicted a conservative victory, tried in vain to nationalize the election. The cause of Mr. Hoffman was championed by both the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and by the NeoConservative organ, the Weekly Standard. In the face of this unprecedented conservative effort, Bill Owens won by endorsing the Obama Agenda, in an economically depressed region where unemployment has been north of ten percent for some time. This is the second time since the election of Barack Obama, that a Democrat endorsing Obama's agenda has beaten a Republican with national conservative support in a district that demographically favored the G.O.P. The other instance is the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated Congressional seat earlier this year.
What the outcome of the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District shows is that beyond the world of right wing talk shows, the blogosphere, tea parties and grass roots activism, the appeal of the radical right may be much more limited than had been previously assumed. Could it be that the "August Town Hall Follies" with their tenor of rejection, vitriol and political dramatics have convinced few that conservatives have anything meaningful to offer an electorate that is essentially moderate, but that has been trending to the left over the previous two election cycles? It certainly leaves one to wonder just how effective Sarah Palin can be as a national political figure, seeing as she has yet to have any significant outcome on any race in which she has been involved. After all, isn't she the darling of the base, the one individual that can really turn out a crowd?
Don't get me wrong; there is a wake up call for the Democrats in the results of the 2009 elections and in 2010 there is no guarantee that they won't lose more seats, the incumbent party usually does. If it happened to Ronald Reagan, it can certainly happen to Barack Obama. Obama has clearly lost support among independents and people are rightly concerned about the upward growth in federal spending. At the same time, Americans know that this is no ordinary time and that the situation we currently find ourselves in is not the work of the Obama Administration. But those jumping to the conclusion that 2009 is all that meaningful should heed the words of Purdue University Professor of Political Science, Bert Rockman: "I see no particular harbingers for 2010. While people are deeply unhappy about current conditions, they are also keenly suspicious of Republicans." But the bigger takeaway from all of this is that as far as 2009 is concerned, rumors of Barack Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Based on the facts cited above, claims that a great anti-Obama populist revolution is underway cannot be substantiated. More to the point, the great citizen's revolt to "take back their country" seems only to be alive and well in the delusional fantasyland of tea parties, birthers and far right conservatives who can't seem to abide a climate of much needed political change.
Public policy dropout Sarah Palin has written an opinion piece on health care for the Wall Street Journal. I know what you're thinking: "Oh, Sarah, please educate me on this complicated topic." Okay, here we go:
Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care
The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers
You mean like the unelected, unappointed, unregulated, unprincipled folks currently doing the rationing for the insurance industry?
By SARAH PALIN
And a team of gifted copy editors.
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn't agree more.
If, that is, by "more" you mean "less."
Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
What other kinds of "laws" are there? Non-governing? Someone fire the gifted copy editors.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
Obligatory Reagan quote? Check. Reagan was awesome at saying stuff and then backing it up with nothing.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lent credence Sunday to Sarah Palin's claim that the healthcare reform legislation will create "death panels" to judge end-of-life issues.
"Communal standards, historically, is a very dangerous concept," Gingrich said on ABC's "This Week." ...
... Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., died Thursday just a few hours after her insurer, Cigna HealthCare, approved a procedure it had previously described as "too experimental."
..."They have insurance, and there's no reason that the doctors' judgment should be overrided by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office," Jenkins said. ...
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Sun Hudson, a six-month old Texas baby died last week when health care providers at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas removed his life support system over the objections of his mother. The action was authorized under the 1999 Futile Care Law which was signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills. ...
... So the hospital invoked the state law that allows it to end life-sustaining treatment in medically futile cases after a 10-day notice to the family. That deadline was voluntarily extended while the hospital and family tried, unsuccessfully as of Monday, to find another facility to care for Emilio.
Catarina Gonzales, 23, who has no other children and cannot have more, denies that her son is nonresponsive, as medical caregivers say, Carden said. She says the boy smiles and turns his head toward voices. ...
Yeah, I can't stand these people. And not only because my 5th metatarsal's broken and I can't really stand.
This week, at Swing State Project, Crisitunity reminded us of what we've all learned from Alaska bloggers since last August, Sarah Palin is a natural born quitter. Not only did she quit college so often that virtually no one could be found last year who remembered her from any of the places she attended (for example, LA Times, "Sarah Palin's college years left no lasting impression" carried the tag line, "In the five years of her collegiate career, spanning four universities in three states, Palin left behind few traces. Not many professors or students even remember her." See also, AP, and Slate)--but quitting played a key role in laying the ground for her gubernatorial bid:
One other thought about Alaska that just about everyone in the tradmed seems to be missing. Sarah Palin did have a job in between being mayor of Wasilla and Alaska Governor: she was chair of Frank Murkowski's Oil and Gas Commission. How long was she on this Commission? Less than a year... until she quit in January 2004 with a big public huff (leaving the Commission in the lurch with only one member), saying "the experience was taking the 'oomph' out of her passion for government service and she decided to quit rather than becoming bitter." She publicly cited her frustration with being unable to be all straight-talky and mavericky about the corruption and backbiting on the Commission, but the resignation also came at a very convenient time for switching over to lay the groundwork for her successful 2006 gubernatorial run.
So how does someone with such a gift for strategic quitting come to portray herself at the exact antithesis? Well, pretty much the same way that secessionist southern conservatives convince themselves that they're super-patriots: self-delusion. And what's the Palin/Broder tie-in? Again: self-delusion.
Maybe it's time the Punditalkcrazy realized that Sarah Palin is the most polarizing politician in the Republican Party, not just America. Rasmussen reports:
Although, Newt is more evenly balanced. (Now there's five words in the English language I bet you never thought you'd see in the same sentence with a negation!)
Maybe Obama meant "fierce advocate against gay rights", though, in all fairness, maybe he didn't mean anything at all.
Maybe Charles Franklin (cofounder of Pollster.com) is smarter than the entire Punditalkcrazy put together. Okay, not saying much. But his take on Palin is all the proof you need....
Sarah Palin Resigns In A Mega-Blizzard of Lies--Revealing A Crucial Difference Between Libertarians and Liberals
It was a slow newsday, Friday before a holiday, so why shouldn't Sarah Palin suck up all the oxygen in five continents? If only that stupid Michael Jackson fellah hadn't died the week before, she could have totally pulled it off. As it was, she did pretty damn well for a couple of hours there. Her big secret? Same as it ever was: she lied. Seven ways from Sunday. She lied about being cleared in all the Alaska investigations; she lied about their cost; she lied about wanting to serve the people of Alaska; she lied about fulfilling her goals; she lied about people attacking her son Trig; she lied about being like a point guard; she lied when she said "and" and "the". She spoke, therefore she lied.
Why does Sarah Palin lie? She lies to get out of trouble; she lies to shift blame; she lies to get even; she lies to get ahead; she lies to hurt her enemies; she lies to amuse her friends; she lies to relieve boredom; she lies to have some fun; she lies because truth is bother; she lies as a key to strategy; she lies because she has no plan; she lies to confuse anyone trying to keep track; she lies to make sense to those not keeping track; she lies for power; she lies because lying works for her; she lies just for the hell of it; she lies because she can; she lies because that's how she expresses her freedom--a very libertarian idea of freedom, I might well add.
Liberals and libertarians are both about freedom, but their concepts of freedom are radically different, and Sarah Palin's compulsive, multipurpose lying is as a good a way as any to approach understanding the differences between them.
In sharp contrast, liberals characteristically express their freedom by telling the truth, inconvenient truths, as Al Gore put it. Truths about racism and war, such as Martin Luther King told, when speaking truth to power. Truths about the social order and tradition that are not supposed to be said.
Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based blogger for HuffPo is talking about the possibility of criminal charges relating to how her Wasilla home was paid for/built. (Hey, that's just Alaska political tradition, nothing to see here).
But why would she quit over that possibility? Would it be easier to defend yourself on those charges as the sitting Governor or as an ex-Governor? I think the former.
My own take is that Sarah Palin quit to pursue what really matters to her now: money and fame. The politics thing was becoming a drag what with ethics investigations and questions - all those pesky questions! Somewhere inside it had to hurt looking like a fool on national television with Katie Couric blinking at you expectantly for an answer you had no idea how to give or even dodge gracefully. I don't think she wants to do that again or do the work involved to better prepare.
Anchorage Rep. Hawker noted that Palin's decision to quit "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches, that type of thing, without being cluttered by state ethics law."
I think that's about right. She may even have lucrative offers before her now. I think the kind of easy money she could make right now is just too appealing for her. Last fall, instead of focusing all her energy on campaigning or preparing for interviews/debates, she spent considerable amounts of time shopping. $150,000 worth. Clothes for the family too. It was her time to cash in - after several years of work as mayor of Wasilla and 2 years as Governor, she was getting paid!
Here's another piece from the ADN story:
Larry Persily, a former aide to Palin in her Washington, D.C., office, said he thinks she is shedding all that is bad about her job as governor -- from the ethics complaints to her bruising fights with the Legislature -- "and she can just be a national star in front of adoring crowds." "It's like the kid who leaves college early for the NBA draft and says, this is when I am at my height in the market and I'm going for it," said Persily, a former Anchorage Daily News opinion editor who is now an aide to Rep. Hawker.
Again, this sounds right to me. Instead of her basketball metaphor - a point guard facing a full-court (and hostile) press who passes the ball to their Lt. Governor teammate - Palin is dropping out of college after 2 years so she can get paid. Losing a Republican primary in 2012 would leave her past her earning peak (anyone heard from Dan Quayle since his aborted Presidential run?).
So, where does that leave Republicans? Let's see. Bobby Jindahl bombed in his non-State of the Union response. Besides, he's 10 years younger than President Obama. He won't run in 2012. Utah Governor Huntsman is off to China. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is running for Senate in 2010. If he wins he would take office in January 2011 which is also when he would need to announce plans for a Presidential run. He's not running. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is still named "Bush." South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is..... oh, you get the point. Pretty much it's Mittens' nomination if he wants it.
Sarah Palin's departure from the forefront of American politics is just part and parcel of the continuing kaleidoscope of chaos on the right. In my opinion, her selection as a Vice Presidential candidate was nothing more than a political stunt aimed at capturing the disappointed female supporters of Hilary Clinton. As the current article in Vanity Fair reveals, prominent McCain staffers say that her being picked as a running mate was the single biggest mistake that McCain made in his bid for the presidency. Her selection may have actually led her to think that she had the heft and substance to be a major player on the national scene, but her comments and analytical viewpoints show that she was clearly out of her league and well off of the mark in possessing what it takes to be Vice President of the United States, or Chief Executive. During the 2008 race, Fred Thompson lauded Palin for her prowess as a hunter, saying that: "She could field dress a moose". That would be a great leadership credential if we were living in the Stone Age, but it is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote in the twenty first century.
Sarah Palin may well rile up the base of the Republican Party. That could be a liability as the base can actually derail the G.O.P. in upcoming elections. Republican strategist Mike Murphy recently said: "If the Sarah Palin we perceive today wins the nomination in 2012, the G.O.P. will lose. Most Americans don't think Palin is ready to be President. The base loving you is not enough to get you elected." Conservative columnist Michael Gerson, speaking on the News Hour said of Palin: " She was not ready in 2008" and that," She really alienated women and the college educated on both coasts and that is not how you rebuild the Republican Party." The cold, hard reality is that the Republican Party cannot hope to win without the support of independent voters, whom Palin clearly alienates and whose ranks are now at a seventy-year high as a proportion of the electorate. Based on her chronic foot-in-mouth problems, it is not all that far fetched to say that Palin would be more likely to gain votes among independents by posing naked in Playboy than by taking the stage to promulgate her political views.
The real question is if Governor Palin has not just committed political suicide by leaving the political stage at a time when most political observers have suggested that her political future hinged on saying less and studying more so as to get up to speed with regard to the issues and substance that the top job in this country requires. After eight years of George Bush that" aw shucks" approach just doesn't cut it anymore, unless your only goal is to appeal to the base of the Republican Party.
A Republican source close to her political team told CNN's John King that it was a "calculation" she made that "it was time to move on." The governor's "book deal and other issues" were "causing a lot of friction" in her home state, the source said, adding that he believes she is "mapping out a path to 2012."
To put it a different way: she wants to focus on making a lot of money instead of annoying things like governing. Then, she wants to run for President.
However, stepping down as Governor halfway through her first term won't give confidence to anyone who already had doubts that she could perform well as President. Maybe it is just because I am a gay Muslim Mexican socialist coastal terrorist secular liberal elitist who doesn't "get" middle America, but this seems like a terrible, terrible strategic move.
P.S.: Many commenters will inevitably say this is becuase of some sort of looming scandal. Maybe, but I am still going with Palin being a bit flaky and looking to cash in.
Sarah Palin claims this photoshopped image of her cuddling an Alaskan media enabler--a fundraising thermometer for investigating her corrupt administration--is an outrageous attack on her Downs Syndrome son, whom she was cuddling in the original.
Are you stupid enough to believe her?
During the Palin/Letterman kerfuffle, the smartest thing written or said came from Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore, whose diary "Top 10 Reasons Sarah Palin's 'Outrage' is Misplaced and A Little Late..." received far too little notice, even though it was picked up by Huffington Post. As Moore wittily revealed, there was, unfortunately, absolutely nothing new or unique about Letterman's joke, it's just that Palin had run out of more appealing options:
10) Last September, a skit on Saturday Night Live suggested incest in the Palin family. "What about the husband?" asked a mock Times reporter. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska!" No outrage. Sarah Palin appeared on the show one month later in late October.
No poutrage over this earlier photoshop with David Letterman.
Mudflats reports on a public hearing and rally in Anchorage in opposition to Sarah Palin's refusal of federal stimulus funds, and takes note of just how bizarre this turn of events really is:
The fact that Alaskans actually had to go to these lengths to reaffirm their desire for money coming into the state probably came as a bit of a shock to the likes of Congressman Don Young and former Senator Ted Stevens, whose long reigns in the congressional delegation were based largely on their ability to bring home the federal bacon. This whole "we don't need the money" meme is brand new.
Apparently there are Alaskans who are so madly in love with Palin that they don't mind the fact that she as the advocate for the state of Alaska, suddenly feels more of a sense of duty to save the country money than to represent the interests of her constituents.
Particularly weird given her Alaska Independence Party roots. But then, weird is pretty much all they've got going for them, isn't it? A kid with Downs Syndrome and she's cutting off funds for special education.
Mudflats has a collection of quotes from prominent Alaskans in a post that also announces a rally for today at the famous Loussac Library, site of the mammoth anti-Palin "welcome back" rally that overshadowed the official one back in September. But the most damaging of the quotes she has comes from a post by blogger/radio host and former GOP legislator Andrew Halcro, who reports:
This was an email I received this morning from a legislative leader:
Here's the scoop on the Big Stim funding. Until 24 hours before her press conference, the Governor was going to accept most everything, and reject a few items that we all pretty much agreed were not acceptable. Most of the Big Stim money is really pretty benign and does not require unsustainable new permanent programs.
The issue became a big tug of war for control of the Gov between folks in state government and Sara PAC. Sara PAC won, literally hours before the announcement was made. Alaska was sacrificed again to the godless pagan illusions of her national ambitions.
No way the folks at home are going to be happy with this.
Quick question for readers of Open Left: which person, after being introduced to the nation with some fanfare, ended up being a bigger liability to the GOP, Sarah Palin or Michael Steele?
When Palin was introduced as John McCain's running mate there was a honeymoon period that lasted a couple weeks before she opened her mouth without benefit of a script. After the interview with Charlie Gibson her favorability ratings started a quick dive and soon (especially after the Couric interview) her negatives were higher than her positives. Any chance McCain had to win Independent voters was gone.
When Steele was introduced there was similar GOP optimism for awhile. Like Palin, he was a rare non-white-male Republican who they hoped would help the GOP expand its base. Nationally he was just as much of an unknown as Palin was before her selection and many Republicans projected their hopes onto him. Like Palin, however, he seems to have a problem speaking without a script (such as the new revelations here). So much of a distraction as he become that he may be dropped as RNC Chair.
Of course there was also talk of dropping Palin from the ticket. But, as many here pointed out, McCain was is in a no-win situation at that point. Keep her and he would lose the moderates. Dump her and he would lose enthusiasm, turnout and contributions from activist Republicans.
A similar situation faces the GOP now only the sides are reversed. Keep Steele and try for moderates or dump Steele (and go with Katon Dawson) take a lot of bad press and give up, to some degree, on moderates. It's a no-win and it's just as fantastic as the McCain situation was last fall.
Lots of speculation tonight over the "real" reason for Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska. An Alaska-based 
