Paglia on Palin’s Resignation

Assigned Reading: Camille Paglia: Can Palin Ever Come Back?
(FROM: Salon.com)

Of all of the analyses of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s sudden resignation last week, this is perhaps one of the best. It reminds me of Camille Paglia’s post-election assessment of mainstream media adulation toward Barack Obama — honest, well-written, and true. Here’s the part of her column devoted to Palin:

I assume that family priorities — personal as well as financial — had become all-consuming. Given her success with finalizing the massive Alaska pipeline project, I think Palin should have stuck it out, but of course she is master of her own fate. What certainly was blameworthy was the chaotic and rushed statement itself. Something so politically consequential needed more careful composition and rehearsal. Why provide more fodder for the vultures and harpies of the Northeastern media?

Unfortunately, it’s pretty obvious that Palin still lacks that cadre of trusted pros who are the invisible elves behind every successful national politician — the assistants who gather and vet material and who filter proposals and plan logistics. In a way, this is part of her virtues — her complete freedom from routine micromanagement and business as usual. She does her own thing with seat-of-the-pants gusto. It’s why she remains hugely popular with the Republican grass-roots base — as I know from listening to talk radio. Callers coming fresh from her rallies are always heady with infectious enthusiasm.

Of course you’d never know that from reading hit jobs like Todd Purdum’s sepulchral piece on Palin in the current Vanity Fair. Scurrying around Alaska with his notepad, Purdum still managed to find comically little to indict her with. Anyone with a gripe is given the floor; fans are shut out. This exercise in faux objectivity is exposed at key points such as Purdum’s failure to identify the actual instigator of Palin’s extravagant clothing bills (a crazed, credit-card-abusing stylist appointed by the McCain campaign) and his prissy characterization of Palin’s performance at the vice-presidential debate as merely “adequate.” Hey, wake up — Palin cleaned Biden’s clock! By the end, Biden was sighing and itching to split.

Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor. She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it. Palin should not have gotten into a slanging match with David Letterman or anyone else who has been obsessively defaming her or her family. Let surrogates do that stuff.

The vicious double standard is pretty obvious. Only the tabloids, for example, ran the photos of a piss-drunk Chelsea Clinton, panties exposed, falling into her car outside London clubs a few years ago. If Chelsea had been the scion of Republican bigwigs, those tacky scenes would have been trumpeted from pillar to post in the U.S. as signals of parental failures or turmoil in clan Clinton. As a Democrat, I detest the partisan machinations that have become standard in Northeastern news management and that are detectable in editorial decisions at major metropolitan newspapers nationwide. It’s why I, like a host of others, have shifted my news gathering to the Web.

As an aside, something I found funny was Paglia’s use of Chelsea Clinton’s recent partying as an example of the media’s double-standard. Now, you know how I feel about going after a politican’s family, either on the right or on the left, but because I not only hadn’t heard anything about Chelsea’s wild night nor had I seen the pictures documenting it, I thought I’d go looking for them.

Amazingly enough, while the story of her recent encounter with Al Cohol is fairly widely available on the Internet, the related photographs are extremely difficult to find. Quite a contrast from what I remember about Jenna and Barbara Bush during their college years. The Bush twins’ pictures, of course, were everywhere.

Regardless, Paglia is pretty well spot-on in her assessment of Sarah Palin’s strengths, weaknesses and political future. Only time will tell. I, for one, will be rooting for her.

Share

Comments

  1. WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT? says:

    A high school graduate, no scratch that, even a GED with an F in geography would appeal to me as long as they had common sense and a simple grasp of economics.

  2. SUCCUMBING TO EVONY says:

    Jeff, do you get blog points if we click on Evony over there? I'd do it, but just for you. :D

    verification word: ramalitu
    My kingdom in Evony, my Lord

  3. Linda says:

    "I, for one, will be rooting for her." Amen, Jeff.

    One thing that the political pundits fail to want to recognize is that Sarah Palin is just the kind of person that the American public is looking for . . . someone who doesn't talk down to them, someone who actually understands that taking public time and, therefore, money to fight personal battles is not the right thing to do. All they can do is talk beltway and scrutinize people in that manner. They are so out-of-touch with the real American public that it's really pitiful.

    I saw a video of Sarah the other day in her waders pulling in fish nets on a boat and both my husband and I were practically cheering her. You had to love her comment that "only dead fish go with the flow." I sent her an email (her email address easily accessible on the Alaska governor website) and told her that I congratulated her on her decision to respect her constituency and not take their time to defend herself, and on taking her life in a more concentrated and positive direction, while expresing my desire that we hadn't seen the end of her public life serving the people, not only in her state, but nationally as well. Goodness knows where she'll pop up; but, despite what the pundits want to think, she will have a following. (Must be driving them crazy!)

  4. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Jeff, do you get blog points if we click on Evony over there? I'd do it, but just for you. :D

    Please don't click on Evony. I love cleavage as much as the next guy, but I'd like for more topical ads to grace the site (topical ads generally pop in when you click on one post or another individually).

    If you remember, there once was an ad for CIVONY. It took forever, but went away.

  5. BOOBS BOOBS GO AWAY says:

    OK Jeff! Here's to hoping the cleavage goes away! I can't believe I just said that. Politics is all consuming lately.

  6. ARTICLE 1 SECTION 6 says:

    Judicial Watch Asks Court to Declare Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

    .Files New Motion in Lawsuit on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer
    Contact Information:
    Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

    Washington, DC — July 8, 2009
    Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on July 2 it filed a motion with a special panel of three federal judges in the District of Columbia asking the court to declare Hillary Clinton ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. The Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed on behalf of a U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, maintains that the "emoluments clause" of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Mrs. Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until January 2013, and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)).

    Government lawyers had previously filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as a "cross motion for summary judgment."

    According to Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. However, as noted in the motion, "the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, including as many as three times during the second, six-year term to which she was elected."

    Congress attempted to circumvent this constitutional provision by "rolling back" compensation for the position of Secretary of State to the level in effect on January 1, 2007, when Mrs. Clinton's second term in the Senate began. The motion maintains: "This [fix] does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate." Judicial Watch also notes that throughout the nation's history, "the Ineligibility Clause was readily understood and applied consistent with its plain language." Only relatively recently have government officials attempted to get around this constitutional provision through legislative quick fixes.

    "Congress must not be allowed to do an end run around the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State until 2013. The Constitution is crystal clear on this point. We hope the court puts a stop to this naked attempt to circumvent the Constitution in the name of political expediency."

  7. Gail B says:

    I heard today that Palin is going to campaign–not for herself, but for a long-time friend–for reelection.

    Also heard today that an O's a$$-kissing reporter called Sarah's baby RETARDED! That did not go over well, either.

    Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air who has good sense, is respected and liked, and is in touch with the average American. SHE CONNECTS, and the liberal Dems don't know what to do about her–short of assassination!

  8. Anonymous says:

    If you mean all those BOOBS in DC to go away, you have my vote.

  9. Rix says:

    Re: Evony.

    I'd like to clarify the issue once and for good:

    1) Evony *is* Civony that was renamed due to a lawsuit threat from Firaxis Games, the Civilization games trademark owner.

    2) The game itself has nothing to do with females or any parts of their anatomy. It is a web-based online strategy game – rather pathetic one as they go.

    3) Jeff gets no money from clicking on banners that "grace" his blog with their presence; Google, the owner of blogger.com, gets about 4 cents per click. Since Google is a staunch Democratic supporter, I do not click the banner on principle.

  10. Rix says:

    Re: ARTICLE 1 SECTION 6 said…

    Who cares, it's just the Constitution, a living document. It won't be its first clause trampled by the Congress. The example of Honduras leaves some hope, though – if only our military and Supreme Court had the balls…

  11. Gail B says:

    Everybody–I found this link in a comment here (somewhere). You really need to read it, and be sure to click on the link "Bioterrorism evidence" in the story.

    http://www.infowars.com/journalist-fired-over-flu-pandemic-lawsuit/

    Don want to copy and paste? Click HERE.

    Be sure to go down to Section XIII if you don't read anything else!

    This is criminal, underhanded, and explains a LOT!

    Thank you, whoever gave the link!

  12. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Actually, Rix, I do get a very small pittance from the per-click stuff. I'm lucky if it amounts to $3 each day — but it's SOMETHING!

    When I get back from Poland, I'll be looking to change up the ad hosts.

  13. SOLIDARITY says:

    Bring me back some sausage. And some freedom.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Rix,

    Maybe the military would follow the lead of a well trained, disciplined and professional civilian force.

  15. REMEMBER ALL CAPS MAN says:

    My t-shirt 'got birth certificate?' just shipped. Come on baby. I might be the first black-on-WHITE homicide in Memphis in a LONG time.

  16. HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS says:

    Dang, the boobs are just a bait and switch? Kinda like a Eddie Murphy date?

  17. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE says:

    You are claiming that $3 income, correct?

  18. CLEAVAGE EXODUS says:

    Anonymous at 9:35…
    ROFL
    LMAO
    OMG
    soooooooo funny
    TY

  19. Rix says:

    Re: Jeff
    My first response was eaten by the Internet monster. I stand corrected – could it be the difference between free and paid accounts? – and, from now on, will click on the banners religiously until you return the "Contribute" button.

    Re: Anonymous
    > Maybe the military would follow the lead of a well trained,
    > disciplined and professional civilian force.
    If you know of such force's existance (outside of Obamajugend, a.k.a. National Service Corps), please mail me a sign-up form.

  20. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Rix — If you really want it, the "contribute" function is at the top of the page: "Contact us or contribute." Repeatedly clicking on the cleavage or any other ad for that matter will nullify your clicking.

  21. Rix says:

    Jeff:
    The "Contribute" option doesn't work, and no, it's not the first time I try it and it never did; I'll gladly provide a snapshot of the failure screen if necessary. As for repeated banner clicking, I know that.

  22. GRAB YOUR COFFEE, READ A LETTER says:

    Letter to the Editor by Elsie M. O'Bryan, Houston, AK
    Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
    July 6, 2009

    To the editor:

    In case you're wondering what this Alaskan thinks of Sarah stepping down before her term is up…

    I know, from my own observation of the articles and editorials and multiple facetious ethics complaints that Sarah could make no move — regardless of how mundane — without constant harassment. Yes, I use the word "harassment" because I believe that is what it has been.

    No political figure is immune, nor should they be immune, from questioning (those who know me know I've done my share of that on the local and state level over the years) of motives, proper procedures, etc. That's part of the process.

    However, when it comes to the point that a person who is attempting to do her best in the position she was elected to do cannot do so, and when the cost in time and money to the individual and to the state to defend against allegations, becomes the prudent thing to do to step away.

    I think it was an unselfish move to have chosen to step away from the office of governor and I believe that it was a matter of analyzing the ability to continue to be effective and judging that with the onslaught of attacks of every move and concluding that it was time to step aside.

    I believe it is time to impose a fee for filing ethics complaints, which can be refunded if the complaint is found to have merit. I believe those who filed multiple complaints, which were dismissed, were on a well-thought out campaign that cost them nothing. There needs to be a process whereby folks can continue to file complaints and expect a fair and unbiased review, yet those who use that process for a campaign for destruction are held accountable for a part of the expense.

    Has she been a good governor? Yes she has. Has she been able to accomplish getting major goals accomplished through bringing thorny players together? Yes.

    Would an ugly male be treated the same way by the media? Murkowski wasn't. Obama isn't.

    I have to agree with one commenter who stated, to the effect of "Just believe what she's saying." Don't look for alligators under rose bushes.

    I only hope that some of the media people and "bloggers" who pushed this to this extent can have a measure of conscience and learn that there is a line and they have crossed it.

    Elsie M. O'Bryan

    Houston

  23. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Huh. It must not have worked since I changed the format of the site.

    (I just figured it was the economic downturn in action!)

    It works now.

    Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

  24. Anonymous says:

    seen and heard countless analysis of Palin's decision and resignation announcement.

    have heard so many asking "what's the REAL reason…"

    she was explicit in her reason.
    she told us why.
    she said in no uncertain terms there is a huge financial burden to her family's budget…

    she explained she in her capacity AS GOVERNOR she puts alaska first… she did that by cutting down the time spent in her office answering to silly attacks when the time AND money can be best served elsewhere.

    THAT DONE, she focuses on her family and in her CAPACITY AS MOM, WIFE, DAUGHTER, ETC., they certainly come first.

    when in think of people like Powell who resigned in the middle of a war, and all the others regardless of their "reasons" it simply astounds me that we choose not to take Palin at her word – - BASED ON HER PAST PERFORMANCES, clearly she has though.

    her resignation has is not effective yet and still we prance on her… how about giving her the day after resignation and opine on her actions thereafter…. i just know she is going to amaze many who will find htemselves scrambling again to find any bad opinion in any good she has to offer, but she will be victorious because finally, we have gotten back to THE PEOPLE and it is the PEOPLE – NOT HER OPPONENTS OR A POLITICAL MEDIA… we have had enough of unfair media and THE PEOPLE will see her through.

  25. Anonymous says:

    she has no history that tells us not to trust her, so TRUST HER. its the honest and right thing to do.

  26. Gail B says:

    They just can't stand it because she hasn't gone down in a pyrotectic display of scandal, saying she is doing this for her beloved state because she feels it is the right avenue to take. They would MUCH prefer her to have had a perverted affair with a polar bear or someone in Argentina!

    Sarah Palin is so clean, she squeaks! Contemporary liberal Democrats are so envious they can't keep their sarcastic, critical mouths shut!

    GO, SARAH!

  27. Anonymous says:

    We saw more pictures of Jenna and Barbara Bush as opposed to Chelsea because, well, lets face it, republican women are much hotter.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Yesterday, I overhead three young men discussing Sarah Palin.

    I smiled because they were talking about her, which means they're paying attention.

    Just a few short years ago, they (not these three specifically) weren't!

    Change will come, and it will be from our youth.

    A couple of years ago, I explained to my then 15-year-old son that his generation would be in control in 30 years. He didn't believe me. And, when he grasped that people my age (30 years his senior) were in charge now, he said, "That's scary!" He realized I was right about his generation being in power in 30 years.

    Now he pays more attention. He leans left, but he is open to discussions with me and even asks, "Mom, what do you think?"

    How many of you get that from your teenagers?

    —–
    verification: ungled (bungled without the B…can I have mine with the B(arack)????

  29. Anonymous says:

    verification: ungled (bungled without the B…can I have mine with the B(arack)????

    OOPS…i meant WITHOUT {shudders at the thought}

Speak Your Mind

*