Sarah Palin left her Governor's position yesterday. She had a parting shot at the media,
"So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit making up things. And don't underestimate the wisdom of the people. And one other thing for the media -- our new governor has a very nice family, too, so leave his kids alone," she said as she handed off power to Sean Parnell, the lieutenant governor.
Some speculated she's still planning on a run at the presidency in 2012, others said quitting office in mid term hurts her politically. One thing seems sure, she plans on staying in the public eye doing speeches and writing books.
At least she'll be raking in some serious dough now. Maybe she was impatient about getting her hands on the inevitable riches she could gain once out of office, and that's why she quit. All Palin could say about her political future was "I don't know."
If she resurfaced as a political candidate in the future and managed to make it into the White House, what kind of an impact could she have on trans people?
Is there a chance she could actually support us?
Did being the target of media attention teach her how cruel people can be?
Did she get the message that when someone doesn't like you they will try to cast you in a bad light to a society just itching to get the dirt on people?
Does she realize when a negative stigma is attached to you wrongly it can impair your ability to enjoy your inalienable rights?
From her parting words it seems she's pretty upset about the treatment she got after she and McCain lost the election. But did she learn anything good from that?
Julie
As one commentator said, "her mind is turned off, but her ego is running at full blast." I'll buy that.
Oh poor baby, the press was all mean to you. But weren't they pretty brutal on Bill Clinton too, on Gore? Sure. As old Harry S Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen." She's a political Sally Field who just can't wait to say "You love me, you love me, you really love me." And American politics just ain't like that. Nor has it ever been. Old George Washington got a pass, no one since then has.
Her political career is going to be easy to track. Sure, she can and will write the 'book' (it will be ghostwritten for her) and it will sell a lot of copies to people who won't really read it - not much for book larnin', you 'betcha. And she is going to be the darling of the rubber chicken circuit for conservative causes, but... if she takes a TV show, her political aspirations are done and over with. Because going on TV once a day for an hour is a full hour of stuff you're opponents can use against you.
As for being President, no way. She does not represent the Republican Mainstream - the 'country club' Republicans who actually don't find anything wrong in going to Yale and Harvard, and don't think its all that cool to take six years in five low level schools to get a degree that doesn't count for much in the end. The people who love her - and they do love her - are part of the past, not the future. They are rural and mostly Southern. (and core Southern at that, Florida and Virginia are peeling off, and Texas was always a case unto itself) and that's not where the power in America lies. It's Coastal, urban and educated. What she is going to do is put a very pretty face on some very ugly values.
All that is predicated on her not getting a federal indictment, which is very possible.
I will say this, I 'becha she's going to be divorced in five years or less. Old Todd, and I like guys like Todd, I'd rather have the fishing boat and the snowmobile over the suit and the grip and grin photo opps myself - is going to find himself alone and get some future Miss Alaska wantabee to service the old Todd Rod, and that's going to be that.
I can't see Sarah being a factor one way or another for trans-folk.
Nor can I see her having learned anything from
Quote
Did being the target of media attention teach her how cruel people can be?
Did she get the message that when someone doesn't like you they will try to cast you in a bad light to a society just itching to get the dirt on people?
Does she realize when a negative stigma is attached to you wrongly it can impair your ability to enjoy your inalienable rights?
From her parting words it seems she's pretty upset about the treatment she got after she and McCain lost the election. But did she learn anything good from that?
except that "people of God are always persecuted because they don't go with the flow and strive against the powers of this world and prophets are always without honor in their own country."
I spent a lot of time around very fundamentalist xtians, in my family and among those other "strict" fundies and evangelicals I have lived among for large parts of my life.
Introspection and discovering those items you listed, Julie, are not strong points among them. They are right and others just hate them for being on God's side is what I have seen. I see nothing in Sarah that would lead me to believe she would be different.
She is going to dance with whoever is footing the bill, and that ain't going to be us.
Personally, I see her as the typical beauty queen persona - look at me, aren't I beautiful? - having never really had to work hard at anything besides her looks. She did manage to go farther than many beauty queens do but in a state that is out of sync with what's happening in the lower 48.
Would she have been able to be elected to even an alderman in Chicago? I doubt it, she isn't thick skinned.
But when 40% of those polled think she's a positive force, that's pretty scary. If 40% of the people thought there was nothing wrong with being trans we'd be in a pretty good place right now. It's a big number and it frightens me that that many people can't see she's all fluff, especially after all the nonsensical speeches she's made.
How many sheep are there really in this country?
Julie
How many sheep are there really in this country?
I'd say about 20%, the other 20% of those people who thinks she's a positive force are like me, thinking that everything she does just ruins the Republican brand even more, and that can't help but be a good thing.
I don't think that she'll do any good, and that she may potentially do a lot of harm.
Hmm, I very much doubt that she would have much room in her worldview for anything transgender. I agree with Nichole, in that these people typically "just know" they're right and, comforted by the sense of righteousness, don't ever question their own views...they just assume opposing views are the domain of the stupid or evil.
Marriage was a union between man and dinosaur until satan created homosexuals and abortionists and cast us out of Eden. Duh.
I think a lot of her base are stupid women who somehow think she is a beacon of light for the gender. Because obviously we need even more ditz celebrities who blow $10000 on purses for their preteen daughters.
I read an article that had an interview with Jevi, Bristol's crotchspawner, who said Sarah was always talking about how lucrative the promotions and books and everything would be when he was at their place. So he was firmly in the cashing out for money thing.
Quote from: Julie Marie on July 27, 2009, 12:50:31 PM
How many sheep are there really in this country?
Julie[/color][/font]
On both sides, or just on her side?
Both combined it's at least 60%, quite possibly a great deal higher.
Quote from: tekla on July 27, 2009, 11:24:23 AM
As one commentator said, "her mind is turned off, but her ego is running at full blast." I'll buy that.
Oh poor baby, the press was all mean to you. But weren't they pretty brutal on Bill Clinton too, on Gore? Sure. As old Harry S Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat stay the hell out of the kitchen." She's a political Sally Field who just can't wait to say "You love me, you love me, you really love me." And American politics just ain't like that. Nor has it ever been. Old George Washington got a pass, no one since then has.
Get used to it. The first step to creating propaganda is to claim the other side is propaganda. I don't believe for a minute there is a liberal media, I see MSNBC, but I feel Faux news marginalized what conservative viewers MSNBC had and MSNBC for viewers liberalized themselves. CNN is pretty balanced, they had Beck until a few months ago. Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs are still on CNN. But that is the basis of a "liberal media." When they fairly point out your flaws, the critiques are some how undermined by being "liberal media." Palin is going to play this until she dies, Bush invaded a country on false premises doing unknown damage to our economy, world image, resources, not to mention human lives, and he got a free pass compared to Clinton's ->-bleeped-<-.
QuoteHer political career is going to be easy to track. Sure, she can and will write the 'book' (it will be ghostwritten for her) and it will sell a lot of copies to people who won't really read it - not much for book larnin', you 'betcha. And she is going to be the darling of the rubber chicken circuit for conservative causes, but... if she takes a TV show, her political aspirations are done and over with. Because going on TV once a day for an hour is a full hour of stuff you're opponents can use against you.
I heard just the other day that Bill Kristol could get Palin on the daily show. I am anxiously waiting.
QuoteAs for being President, no way. She does not represent the Republican Mainstream - the 'country club' Republicans who actually don't find anything wrong in going to Yale and Harvard, and don't think its all that cool to take six years in five low level schools to get a degree that doesn't count for much in the end. The people who love her - and they do love her - are part of the past, not the future. They are rural and mostly Southern. (and core Southern at that, Florida and Virginia are peeling off, and Texas was always a case unto itself) and that's not where the power in America lies. It's Coastal, urban and educated. What she is going to do is put a very pretty face on some very ugly values.
First off, the last sentence is a perfect summary of her appeal. Atheists are more prominent, homosexuality is more open, and liberals aren't demonized any more. Because of these, the groups are becoming more acceptable and less feared in America, hurting the republican base. She is nothing more than the 1980's ignorance with a pretty face to distract people from political issues.
Other than that, Obama should easily win in 2012 (pending he doesn't slap a white woman, thus angering whitey, and making Limbaugh's head explode). He'll win because the 3 Republican front runners of 4 months ago (Jindall, Sanford, and Palin) have imploded. Palin cut and ran from her job, Jindall sounded like a retard presenting the republicans response to the State of the Union. Sanford, well, I won't beat the issue.
But in rural Virginia (where I live) and Florida, Obama is losing credibility (not to mention what votes he's losing in Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other crucial swing states.) I won't rest until Obama wins 2012 and at least makes an actual attempt at catching us up with the rest of the world in Health Care, removes us from Iraq (and *ideally* closes those costly military bases in Japan, Germany, Cuba, and other nations), and tries to balance the budget (although he came into office at the worst economic time since the depression.) And I say I won't rest because for me, I don't want Obama to win just because the republicans are going to lose, but to win on his own merits.
But to answer the question, I don't think Palin will be good for anyone in the LGBT community. Why we would look to someone of her conservative/religious background is beyond me.
Sarah Palin will be back. Won't surprise me if she makes a run at the White House in 2012. Palin has shown that she'll use anyone to get what she wants. Trans issues will be the least of her concerns.
Gennee
The first step to creating propaganda is to claim the other side is propaganda.
And the first step to understanding propaganda is to understand that its all propaganda, at least in the sense that its written by humans who are always subjective, and in being written, in taking the time and effort to do that, you going to write it because you think you have something to say. And its going to be slanted to that, and reflect the views (often times subconscious) of the person writing. I remember something to the effect that David Lee Roth once said that the reason that music critics like Elvis Costello and not Van Halen or Bon Jovi is because music critics look like Elvis Costello and not like Jon Bon Jovi or Eddie Van Halen. He might have had a point.
First off, the last sentence is a perfect summary of her appeal.
That's why I underlined it.
Obama's real problem I think is going to come from the left, not the right.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.ebaumsworld.com%2Fpicture%2FRizzor%2Fbeatingadeadhorse.gif&hash=673115f3daae1958c7a286332b889874d6b613ff)
QuoteI don't believe for a minute there is a liberal media, I see MSNBC, but I feel Faux news marginalized what conservative viewers MSNBC had and MSNBC for viewers liberalized themselves. CNN is pretty balanced, they had Beck until a few months ago. Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs are still on CNN. But that is the basis of a "liberal media." When they fairly point out your flaws, the critiques are some how undermined by being "liberal media.
In fairnes, the thoughtful criticism of the "liberal media" is never about the commentators.
Anyone who uses Olberman as proof MSNBC is biased, or Hannity that Fox is, is not informed enough to even comment. Dobbs (who's not a conservative, by the way) is no evidence either way about CNN.
The claim, whether true or not, about media bias has to do with the HARD NEWS reporting. The stories which are covered hard and those which get little or no play, the attitude (spin, if you will) with which a story is reported, and so forth.
commentators are SUPPOSED to be biased. CNN may or may not be liberal, but I wouldn't use Jack Cafferty as proof either way.
On an unrelated note, I always find it quite funny that those who insist there is no liberal media bias are usually CERTAIN that fox is conservatively biased. How come it's always only the other guys who are biased?
Amy Goodwin is a real liberal, Rachel is an ivy league liberal, and KO is middle of the road really. Media - due largely to its corporate ownership leans to the right, and as a result few people ever get to hear a real liberal on TV. If it was not for Democracy Now! I doubt that people like Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin, or Tariq Ali who are all solid left wing types would ever get heard. Though, like all liberals and leftists they write, and write, and write some more, so print, far more than TV offers a more diverse array of commentary.
Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2009, 10:55:55 AM
So, when one controls the message through the tube, one controls what passes for the American mind.
That's why celebrities get elected into public office. You no longer have to be educated on the issues that matter, you just have to make a good impression when the camera is in front of you.
Palin got where she is mostly on her looks. And those looks will continue to make her a favorite of the media, that and the fact that she's always willing to say something stupid in front of the camera. :P