“Was she involved in abuse of power scandals in Alaska, and found guilty of breaking state ethics rules?

Yes.”

Not that you need it to help make the case; but she also blatantly LIED about the findings, as if NO ONE would notice:

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/10/17/sarah-palin-lies-to-reporters-about-troopergate-findings.php

How could anyone in the media possibly be mean enough to point out any of this stuff?

Nasty “Pad Throwers”!!!

This thread went off the rails early on...

First--good people, why are we focusing all of this energy on soon-to-be-former Governor Palin? Let me summarize what happened: she quit her job, gave an explanation as to why that gives new meaning to the word "sphinxlike", and now has her lawyer threatening to sue people. Her defenders include: the batty Ann Coulter, ReaderReader--whom I love dearly, but whom is using Nixon and KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest as standards of comparison, all the while insisting that these traits he identifies in her are a GOOD THING, Pat Buchanan, who cant seem to resist referring to her as a 'gal' while defending Palin's honor, and Bill Kristol, who one day really will be right about something. Y'all--she wont win the GOP nomination. There are powerful Republicans who will never, ever, let that happen. Her followers are not the movers and shakers of the GOP. They are the people who are moved and shaken by the GOP. The targets of the 60s 'Southern Strategy'. The rubes that think Obama is an alien from the planet Muslim come to take their guns and turn them Socialist. The smart folks in the GOP, the ones that want to actually win another election, know that time is coming to cut ties with this bunch, they are just working on the details of how. But she aint never gonna be the nominee of nobody or nothin'! Trust me, fellow citizens! We'd be better off talkin' about Michael Jackson. Heck--Tito Jackson.

Virt--you are my boy, and I'll always defend you against unfair attacks, but it looks like you're back in the food fight on this topic. I know you have some beef with Joan, but your blows have been particularly low on this one. It's not fair for you to compare Joan's posts to O'Reilly, just because you have the usual gang of anonymous idiots who spew bile in letters threads. You may disagree with some of the stuff she's written, but she's written nothing incendiary, and certainly nothing to compare with O'Reilly on Tiller: "He's a murderer, and he must be stopped." And how can you diss a fellow Vietnam Vet? (I hope you apologized to him later on in the thread; I stopped reading about midway through.) Palin isn't worth this, bro!

I'll holla back with y'all when we get off this Palin train. A brotha is all Palined out!

Hope everyone on both sides of this debate had a good Fourth.

"Vietnam vets not being sorry they served, that is a strange blanket statement. My ex-husband was quite sorry he served. (Of course, he also said that killing there was the "ultimate high." Hmm.... Maybe he had mixed feelings. He didn't like serving his country. He did like violence.) You seem to forget that many Vietnam vets were drafted. They didn't want to go."

Yes, in retrospect it was a strange blanket statement indeed. But it was the Fourth of July weekend and with all the flags out in my neighborhood, I got a little misty-eyed and beerified. In truth, that statement can only apply to my own experience. Don't get me wrong. I'm not some yahoo, who enjoys war. It's horrible. And yes, I do believe Vietnam was a mistake. But when you're a soldier, it's not about whether it's right or wrong. It's about how the hell do I survive this horror show and get my ass home. I really shouldn't have brought it up. It only depresses me in the end. Believe it or not, I rarely talk about.

On McNamara, there's an incredibly good documentary called "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara." He's quite honest and forthcoming about his Vietnam regrets. Netflix has it. I see he died today. Rest his soul.

Agreed on Stevens. Certainly my favorite American poet.

Oh, and um, that was really off-topic. So I should point out that, as far as I can tell, name-calling is covered by the first amendment. If it weren't, every school child (and his/her adult counterpart) would be financing lawyers' boats. And I am not the first to point out that rumors, if presented as rumors rather than facts, especially rumors about people who fling themselves in front of cameras at every opportunity, are not actionable. Finally: if it's true, it's neither libelous nor defamatory.

And if Palin or her followers enjoyed any self-awareness at all, they would frankly find that lawyer's letter a little embarrassing.

I agree that there are other things we might be discussing, such as Obama and the nuke treaty with Russia, or perhaps the rise of feminism in Iran (tehranbureau.com/iranian-feminism-june-2009/).

But I think there's a meta-issue going on here with the interaction of celebrity and tribalism in politics. In that sense, Sarah Palin is just a place holder. Sarah's supporters clearly identify with her and what they perceive as her 'values'.

Those against her have a list of articulated reasons, but I think to be fair, they also have a sense of tribalism as well in that Palin is viewed as the other. The way that she has structured her public image is that it is a zero sum game: This country isn't big enough for the two of us. Her gain is our loss. She hasn't exactly come across as tolerant and embracing, which is different from the official Obama worldview that there is space enough for just about everybody.

So far it looks to me that Obama views Celebrity as a means to an end. With Palin, it may be that Celebrity is the end.

I'm only halfway through the posts but am taking a break to laugh my ass off at that bit.

thank you, kcar.