Introduction to the Project:
(This is a completed live blog. I have decided not to correct most typographical errors or “fix” it. Some was done as late as 3 AM as I finished the book, but I felt the authenticity of the moment generally better than a smoothed out version.)
I have defended Sarah Palin on numerous occasions against critics. I thought some conservatives turned on her too soon and that her executive experience outweighed any negatives known about her. I certainly did not think flubbing some interviews made her unfit to be a chief executive.
If one were to support a pol based on their enemies, no conservative Christian would vote for anyone other than Palin. The fact that Sarah Palin has a womb has apparently caused some critics such as Andrew Sullivan to lose their minds.
Over time, however, I have grown a bit disenchanted with Governor Palin. Nobody reasonable expects to like everything about a political figure . . . conservatives and Christians don’t put much trust in princes or princesses for that matter. Her inexplicable resignation as governor of Alaska years before her term ended should be difficult for even the most devoted Palinista. She has also not been much of a team player and it has been hard to discern a coherent pattern to her positions.
She appears driven more by personality than by philosophy in making policy decisions.
On the positive side she has mastered new media and shows awesome instincts in capturing the mood of parts of the nation in terse Facebook prose. I waited for her book Going Rogue with some interest as a window into her ideas and to address some of these concerns.
Even though I am a Romney guy, 2012 is too far away to have overly firm commitments if you are just a regular guy and not a Party apparatchik and Palin could persuade me.
This is a live chapter-by-chapter reaction as I read that book this weekend. It will follow my thoughts and so may not be particularly orderly or well written! You will notice that I may change my mind as the live reading progresses.
I took this book seriously, because I want to take Palin seriously.
I will post my final thoughts at the end of the review and as a separate post.
Chapter One
This is not a well written book so far. It is overly purple and reads like a parody of high prose. The good news is that it is not a fake book like Mike Huckabee’s dreadful post-election conflation of speeches, revenge, and random thoughts.
Still, this is a bad book up through chapter one.
Should Palin get the blame?
There are few things more irritating to the reader than the modern practice of ghost writing. How much of this book did Palin write? Is she responsible for the description of the Alaska state fair that I had to re-read twice just to grasp?
Palin did not invent the ghost written book, but she has not been well served by it so far. The adjectives in this book are the worst part: steely, plucky, scrappy.
Crappy.
The description of her childhood is like reading a grocery list. Everything is there, but it is hard to care. Her family life sounds warm, but the warmth can only be guessed at because she tells us rather than shows us that it is so.
The book is given to stating things as if we will know their truth by their merely being said.
Palin, the Monkees, and Plato
The most irritating thing about the book so far is Palin overreacting to critics. I once went to a Monkees concert scarred by the group insisting on showing how many instruments they could play. They were still upset about critics from the 1960s who said the boy band was fake!
Palin obviously was justifiably upset by accusations she is dim, but so far this book is not helping her case. She keeps describing herself as a reader and even named C.S. Lewis as a favorite writer, but so far there is no description of anything in a book that moved her and changed her life.
What Lewis does she like? Is the Lewis of That Hideous Strength or the Lewis of Til We Have Faces? Is she a fan of the Narnian Lewis or the argument in Abolition of Man? Did she poke the backs of closets when she was a kid?
We get none of this and so we are left wondering if she read books deeply or as a television substitute in the Alaska of her youth.
It is easy to see the difference when she talks about sports. She can describe in detail what she learned from running, but she never mentions what she learned from a book. There are mentions of Pascal and Plato (!) in the first chapter, but they are referenced as sources of “thoughts” and not as a source for critical ideas or challenges to her life.
I don’t believe a pol has to read Plato for fun to be effective. God knows that many a liberal arts graduate has proven useless at doing things and that Palin has done more in her way than I ever will. Anybody from my home state of West Virginia knows scores of people whose common sense would serve us better in government than angst ridden college graduates whose very uncertainty leads them to believe that they alone should be our philosopher kings.
May Obama be our last president of that sort!
But the ridiculous use of quotes or “big ideas” from great writers that one does not really read or know should end as well. When Palin artlessly writes: “Plato said it well, ‘Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle,’” did she know the context of the quotation? Is it even in Plato? I cannot find it, don’t remember reading it, and I suspect that it is spurious. Can someone give me a reference?
It looks like the sort of thing Google tells you Plato said, but where the reference is impossible to find.
I am willing to bet at this point that Plato never said it, but if he did I am even more willing to bet that Palin and her writer are quote mining. If Plato said such a thing, it was likely in the context of the battle of each man against his lower nature. For Plato the chief battle was the inner one, but Palin uses it to reference our need to sympathize for people’s physical pain and life torments.
It is hard to imagine the Socrates of Phaedo making such a statement. So even if Plato said it (and he wrote so much it is hard to be sure), I am guessing that the context is wrong.
Why do I care? Partly, this is a live blog of my reading and I am a Plato guy so you are stuck with reading what I am thinking, but mostly because I find this kind of misuse of Plato irritating. Why do it? What is gained? Why quote mine?
A Political Philosophy?
As for political ideas, Palin is apparently for things that have helped her and her family and against things that have harmed her or her family. She is a populist about oil spills (rightly I think), because it impacts her state, but otherwise is sunny about big business.
If I read the chapter right, the only bad big business, oil, is bad because Palin has experienced its badness.
This may be uncharitable. Perhaps Palin is a default libertarian who will change her mind in particular instances when big business forces her to do so. In her world view business and business people are innocent until proven guilty.
If so, this is an appealing blend of populism and free markets. It would be nice, however, if Palin said this. Maybe she does later in the book as she spells out common-sense (or roguish!) conservatism.
Is Palin a Christian Existentialist? Sort of?
I am not enjoying this book so far. If I could hear Palin telling her stories about basketball and Alaska, I bet I would love it. She is a speaker and not a writer . . . I think I would like her more than I am liking this book. Perhaps I am just a snob . . . and want something more from Palin than I should.
What is bothering me about her tales of childhood? One thing I like about President Obama’s writing is that it is reflective. One thing I don’t like about President Obama’s writing is that it is too introspective as if every thought he ever had is worth scrutiny. One can imagine him debating why he likes arugula and what it says about self. Palin seems to be just the opposite.
I am hoping at some point she displays some introspection. Is it wrong to hope for some?
Am I now demonstrating the same self-indulgent introspection about introspection that I don’t like in Obama?
At least Palin has me thinking . . . though mostly about her not thinking.
The section on Todd and his family is generous and authentic. Sarah learned something from Todd’s diverse background and it shows. Her voice seems very present in this section. There is hope in this part of the book as it contains no slogans drawn from dimly remembered Reagan speeches.
She loves Alaska, loves the land, and hates people who wreck it. There is no doubt in my mind about any of those things and there are worse traits than these in a leader.
Are there two Sarahs? There is Sarah who is force fed policy speeches and Googles Plato quotes and then there is experiential Sarah who learns by doing.
I am wondering if Palin likes to read, but learns from actions. Perhaps, she would be better served by embracing this, but it also is open question whether this style of intellect is good in a leader of a republic. I am open to it.
This would explain how Sarah has used books and authors so far. She learns something from her experience or that of others and then finds the “smart person” to confirm her ideas of the world. Is she a Baconian politician seeking a covering philosophy for her real world experiences?
So far Sarah has been pretty easy on herself. She seems to be learning from other peoples sins more than her own. What were her vices? Nerdiness? This strikes me as the equivalent of listing “works too hard” as a vice on a job application. She calls her nice guy husband a “jerk” for a high school indiscretion, but she has yet to mention ever being wrong herself in any interesting way.
Mattering Most Of All
Palin writes: “hard work and passion matter most of all.”
This is not true. What if someone has bad ideas? What is an oil company executive works hard an dis passionate in his goal to despoil Alaska and make money? Is he good?
Of course, taking the prose this seriously makes me a clueless academic. This is the sort of thing people write and do not mean. They assume we know that it only applies to morally good people. I am not sure that is true at the higher level of politics, however.
One would not tell the leaders of Iran to work harder and be more passionate about their ideas.
Even in a generous context, however, the idea seems wrong. Palin’s account of her championship year is oddly Palincentric. So far people have appeared in her life and been described, but seem to exist as props in her story. Most likely this is the fault of the writing, but it presents her as self-absorbed.
She scored one point in a championship game, but we are led to believe her playing with pain somehow inspired the win. Who if anyone was the real hero of the game . . . the person with talent who made the baskets?
Talent, which Palin obviously has in abundance in many areas, seems at least as important as hard work and passion. If I had worked as hard as Palin, she would still have been a better athlete than I am, because I lack her gifts.
However, I do believe Palin, when she says she learned a great deal by winning the state basketball championship.
Palin and College
Palin is right to complain about snobbery regarding her college career.
She went to several schools, but seems to have done so to remain debt free. Just going to college and finishing was an accomplishment given that her social set would have accepted her without a college degree.
What does Palin report about college?
Her first year (in Hawaii) seems to have been mostly fun in the sun. It is hard to blame her for that and many of my students can report the same thing.
Her next years of college were (on her account) dominated intellectually by Reagan. As a person about Palin’s age, I can relate to that. She describes Reagan in familiar terms, but as political science major does not interact with Reagan and what she was learning in class.
Was her school so pro-Reagan that she did not have any conflicts? That was not my experience in either a Christian or a secular college. Reagan was controversial amongst most academics and was often treated with disrespect by my professors. Was this true of Palin’s?
Where are her professors?
What were her notable classes?
College appears to have been a “union card” for Palin as it is for so many of us middle-class kids. Other than her Dad and some coaches, she appears to have had no notable teachers.
It is a good reminder to college professors how little impact we have on our students. We are not nearly so important as we think . . . and it is hard not to believe that Idaho failed her. It certainly did not inspire her to mention anything she learned in class.
What exactly is the point of the big general education classes that Palin attended? Isn’t it safe to assume they have almost no lasting impact on most their students? College as a mere right of passage of this sort appears an incredible waste of opportunity.
Couldn’t Palin have gotten what it appears she received from an on-line college?
Palin as Hard Worker
Palin has worked hard.
That is a good thing and her hard work made a bigger impression on her than college. That too is not surprising given the education she was offered at the schools she attended.
Would McCain have picked her without the college degree? Isn’t it absurd that she spent five years earning something, a diploma, that impacted her so little and that we demand such a thing of our leaders?
If it impacts most of them so little, why?
A true sentence in this book: “I did what I had to do.”
I believe and admire Palin for this, because it is obviously true. Palin is (in the right sense) a self-made woman who had to sacrifice and work hard to make it.
We discount this kind of woman’s experience at our peril. Leaders can be born in many places and I see no reason that Palin’s choice to work a fishing boat to help her husband and son is not as formative as any other.
I hope she gets very rich from this book.
On Exxon
The first chapters closed with a description of the oil spill that rocked Alaska. Her justifiable wrath with ExxonMobile oil company is obvious.
Criticisms of Palin on this point have been overdone, in my opinion. It is coherent to think that oil should be drilled, but to be angry when bad practices by some oil companies harm Alaska. To think you should “drill baby drill” does not mean that all drillers are good.
Palin is more nuanced in this section than in any part of the book so far.
Perhaps her second chapter will continue this improvement as the book shifts more to politics.
Chapter Two
On Aristotle
Palin begins her second chapter with a quote from Aristotle. I think I must be going mad, but I cannot remember this quotation either. Where is it?
I cannot find a reference in any book I own . . . but then I am writing this as I read her book. Can someone help me? Did Aristotle say, ” Criticism is something we can avoid by saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing?”
I want a reference to the text.
It is surely not possible that in less than one hundred pages that Palin got two ancient quotations wrong?
It is bad enough if they are used as motivational slogan writers, but couldn’t we at least get the philosopher right?
Maybe I am just having a memory failure. Can some Palinista deliver Sarah by pointing out the reference in the Philosopher’s work?
We have all been taken in my an urban legend. I once read (in a book!) that Alfred Wallace was a “lord” and got properly spanked for passing this piece of nonsense on, but I am beginning to worry about the fact checking in this book.
As Plato did not say, “Getting this sort of thing wrong too often and too quickly is hard on the soul of the reader.”
I strongly suspect that the ghostwriter Googled her way through ancient philosophy quotations. Learn from this students . . . the fact that someone says Aristotle said a thing does not mean that he did.
On Entering Politics
However random the first chapter seemed, the story of Palin’s entering politics is more readable and polished. She knows how she thinks about this era of her life.
Her rise as she tells it is appealing so far. I admire her willingness to raise taxes to pay for a local police department. That is why we render to Caesar!
Palin shows a strong libertarian streak in the chapter with government doing what it can at the edges. In this way, she really should read Aristotle, because he would defend (I think) her notion that politics is an art and not a science.
Palin is also strong when she argues against “old boy” networks in local politics. Who hasn’t faced that in his hometown?
The kind of experience that Palin gained as mayor strikes me as very valuable real world executive leadership. She actually had to do things and see the consequences. Wasilla is small and eccentric, but then so was ancient Athens!
You can learn a great deal by working in a place where everybody knows where you live. Weirdly, the political Palin is coming across as more authentic than the young Palin.
Stop the Quotes Now!
I am giving up trying to confirm Palin quotations, but the irritating habit suddenly saying: “I didn’t take to heart the words of Martin Luther King Jr. . . . ” or some other quotable chap. Was Palin considering King’s words and refused to take them to hear?
Or is she retroactively thinking about them? Where did she find King’s words? Is she a King fan?
I predict that soon we will have a Teddy Roosevelt quote. I can also feel a G.K. Chesterton quotation coming . . . and Mother Theresa is usually good for citation.
Will Sarah let me down or will she quote mine these favorites soon?
This book is really disappointing.
On Being Wrong
Finally Palin admits to doing something bad (page 88) as she apologizes for refusing to back her mother-in-law in politics. This is a well written apology and she seems to have learned that personal connections and loyalty can be important than personal ambition.
This is a fine lesson within limits. She was right to worry about nepotism, but probably wrong to back some one other than her mother.
Palin values loyalty, but not at the cost of her ideals. This is a good thing.
Her resignation from the natural resources board is a story that has been told many times, but it is well told her. This is the Palin I admired and her discussion of the “end of her political career” is moving and strikes me as authentic.
The difference between her use of Jeremiah and the her inauthentic misuse of early quotation is revealing. She did the right thing, suffered for it (even if briefly), and it caused her to reevaluate her life.
Hopefully the rest of the book will continue in this manner.
The Book To Now
What do I think of “Our Sarah” (as some called her) up to this point in the book?
Palin learns by doing. She is highly energetic and fiercely loyal to her folks and family. She has mastered everything thrown at her by a total immersion strategy and by her ability to push harder than most people.
She has always been polarizing and she does not suffer fools gladly. She has been hurt a bit by media attacks on her education and intelligence, but has not reacted in a helpful manner to them.
Is she fit to be President? Perhaps, but I am concerned about her polarizing nature, her dark mood toward critics, and imprecision. Her confidence, energy, native intelligence, and leadership skills are impressive.
Palin has not been well served by this book so far as a book. As a money making and attention getting device it seems to be going very well, but the book is bad so far.
Of course if writing autobiography well were a mark of a great President, then U.S. Grant would have been our finest chief executive.
Something I Cannot Judge
Finally, Palin has faced discrimination in her career from being a woman, being physically attractive, being from Alaska, and being an Evangelical. However, she has reacted to this prejudices by becoming defensive.
This is understandable, justifiable, but will not serve her well in national politics. Rage about slights against self rarely go over well . . . and have caused her to harm her own cause at times however unfair this might be.
She is certainly entitled to her anger and her suspicions, but she might want to reexamine whether her preferred strategy for dealing with both has the outcome she wishes.
I am in no position to judge of course in most of these areas.
I am now taking a break from this blogging for a few hours.
Chapter Three
Palin runs and wins an election for governor in this chapter. The pace of this book reminds you of how young Palin really is for national life.
She truly is an outsider.
She hates “deals” and “power brokers.” Post-Obama and the Great Recession it would be foolish to dismiss this authentic rage. She sounds most herself when she hitting corrupt special interests that lock people out of decision making. She sounds least like herself when repeating 1980’s Republican bromides.
Palin is a populist of the heart, but too sensible to let her populism take her to the lunatic fringe. If she can verbally negotiate the tension in future speeches between Reaganism and populism, she will have found a winning electoral strategy.
Palin is No Theocrat
Palin’s unhinged critics keep seeing her as a theocrat, but the book should end that talk for anyone not starving raving mad.
Palin is very religious and this obviously informs her personal life deeply, but I see no evidence that it impacts her public policy decisions in any way foreign to the American experiment. In fact, if anything one can question whether Palin’s faith is not too privatized.
She argues public policy on the merits, but then describes her final decision in passionate terms using the language of religion. This is standard American practice. So far in the text her faith appears to inform the person Palin becomes who then makes political decisions using reasons available to any American.
If she is “too religious,” then so are most Americans. She is no prude and obviously has lived in the real world.
My guess is that faith forms her moral intuitions and makes certain views, like small government, plausible, but is not used to determine positions where it has nothing directly to say. It is hard to see her using the Bible (directly) to determine energy policy given her discussions in this chapter.
In fact, she may use the Bible the way she used Plato earlier . . . as a way to sanctify (just as Plato intellectualized) her decisions. Does Palin every bow the knee to an idea contrary to her lived experience? The wise often do this as they know the limits of their own experience, but a fool with power never does.
There is hope in Palin’s resignation for the energy board for here, it seems, was one selfless act driven by what Lewis would call the Tao.
It is common to use old books merely to confirm and not to challenge our ideas, but would be most unfortunate since it would mark her as a superficial Christian. A Christian must always be frightened by the Bible, because it makes demands of him that only a saint could even come close to meeting and that no saint ever believes he has met.
A more charitable reading, more likely at this point in the book, is that her faith gives her a basic view of reality and that she then uses that view to make fact-based decisions. Since her views are fairly standard Christian ideas and America historically has been overwhelmingly Christian, her basic views have not had to change when facing political realities.
If this is the basic relationship of her faith to her politics, then her views are well within the Christian and American mainstream. Her private religious practices may (or may not) be more esoteric, but then they did not seem to impact her public policy decisions and so are only our concern if she makes them part of her public persona or platform.
She has not done so in this book so far.
Even on this charitable reading of Palin, however, she still falls into the unfortunate habit of using religious language improperly to baptize her decisions. She should lose this if she can. While American presidents including Franklin Roosevelt (!) have done this in a more extreme manner, Palin will be held to a higher standard than they were as an Evangelical Christian.
She should do nothing to comfort those who think Billy Graham, the Bishop of Phoenix, or Al Mohler are budding theocrats.
Palin as Governor
Palin wanted to clean up corruption in Alaskan politics and she went after it with a vengeance. It is hard to see that she wanted to do much else.
If Palin runs for President of the United States, I suspect she will want little in terms of new domestic policy. She will throw the rascals in jail and then trim and cut. She would enjoy the trappings of office and be an excellent head of state.
Reading about her goals in office makes her resignation understandable for the first time. Palin does not think the state can solve many problems. Where the state constitution gave the state power and that power had been used to create financial reserves, Palin saw political rats eating the patrimony of Alaska.
When she cleaned the rats out of government, her major mission was accomplished. She was not one to grow government or develop new programs. She is a Cal Coolidge in that regard, though she loves the “bully pulpit” aspect of the job more than Silent Cal ever did. Nobody will ever call her Silent Sarah.
When the vice-presidential loss made her a polarizing figure in Alaska, she could no longer be a unifying head of the state. She had limiting governing priorities, so why stay? She had a competent second in command who wanted the job and she did not.
This is a charming picture in a politician. Perhaps Governor Palin can be trusted with power, because she wishes to do so little with it. I can easily believe that her domestic agenda would discomfort the powerful in both parties, but that actual legislation would be simple.
Palin is no Eva Peron.
Palin as Excutive: A Tough Question
If Palin runs for President, we will only be able to judge her based on her short time as governor of Alaska and as mayor. What is her executive style?
If I accept her description of her time as governor, Palin obviously inspires fierce loyalty. Before her vice-presidential selection, she was able to govern as a bi-partisan figure. However, it is not clear that she can inspire the long term loyalty of subordinates more capable than she is.
All leaders must hire people who are better at parts of their job than they are. Reagan was a master of this and could inspire academics and technicians far more “competent” at tasks with fierce loyalty. Reagan was a world class leader who was content to lead . . . and kept excellent men and women nearby like Judge William Clark who could tell him the truth.
In this autobiography, Palin too often has followers or those she dazzles and I see too few long term people in her brain trust. She has no enduring kitchen cabinet or group of backers. This is very, very disturbing.
Her old allies often become new foes and she is quick with a quip to put them in her place. A good executive should command loyalty, but no produce sycophants or demand followers . . . at least in a republic.
My reading of Palin leaves me with this question, “Who are the people, smarter and more capable than she, that have stuck by Palin? Who is Palin accountable too intellectually?”
In a republic a president who cannot inspire the loyalty of the peers, and not the obedience of subordinates, runs the risk of insulating herself from critical information.
Palin as Governor: Detail Nerd
The bulk of the chapter on Palin’s years as governor remind me of what I like about her candidacy. Palin obviously cared about her state and tried to deliver on her promises.
She cared about getting the details right on the state budget, which is after all more important than getting the details right on a Plato quote in her ghost-written book.
I was reminded that before she was Palin-Hell-Raising Icon-made-divisive by attacks, she was a popular and respected reform leader. Democrats in Alaska liked her better than some Republican leaders. It is easy to see why.
She had a record of real accomplishments, including an ethics reform bill and a major gas deal.
As a working mother, she pioneered the sort of bring-your-children to work model that more companies should try.
Sarah Palin obviously was a good governor and John McCain either ruined or made her. It is hard to see which is true at the moment . . . though safe to say her bank account will be better off after this book.
I have been hard on the weaknesses of this book, but Sarah Palin has her strengths as an executive and as a leader and this chapter shows them.
If Palin is not running for President of the United States, then I am sorry to have given this pleasant little book such close scrutiny. Palin has been hit hard by gutter politics and she deserves the gratitude of every Republican for the thankless task of breathing some life into the moribund McCain campaign.
I voted for Palin and not McCain, really.
Palin, however, does not demonstrate enough growth over time in serious policy areas. I don’t care if her goal is a Fox News or Oprah variety show, but she wants (wanted?) to be taken seriously as a leader and I respect that.
I cannot respect the lack of substance. People complain about the length of this live blog, but her book is four hundred pages long. It has details about many areas of her life, but there are so few ideas.
Palin gets things done, but does she have a sufficient philosophical core? I gave her the benefit of the doubt in 2008 based on her record and I am still impressed with this record . . . but the record has not grown, her philosophy is no more clear, and that is not satisfactory if she wants to be leader of the Free World.
Palin herself knows that only a person growing and on the edge can make positive change.
Perhaps John McCain is guilty of ruining a career by promoting a person before she was ready. Perhaps.
Or perhaps I am being too critical. . . but President Obama has been taken to task (rightly I think) for his self-indulgent writings, they are masterpieces of reflection compared to this. I agree with little of his political philosophy, but he obviously has one.
Surely it is obvious that a bad philosophy is best met by a better one and not be none at all? Commonsense is an excellent philosophical tradition and I have enough Scott-Irish blood to appreciate it! Commonsense must be more than a slogan.
If Palin is going to run as a “commonsense conservative” she needs to spell out the details of how that policy will impact us.
Palin and Her Baby
Sarah Palin’s description of her last pregnancy and her reaction to the news of her baby’s special needs reminds me of another thing that I loved about her candidacy.
Despite the lame prose, the book made me tear up when it described her reaction to her pregnancy. Here was honesty, self-doubt, and candor.
Here is a person who has grown through difficulty. Here is the kind of sincere reflection on a difficult issue that matters. There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin understands the right-to-life issue and grasps its importance.
This counts for much in my mind. Sarah Palin has a well formed intellectual position on this issue and has acted admirably. Evil times make normal morality heroic and Palin acted out her beliefs in a manner that in better times would be normal, but is now rare.
I greatly admire the actions of this mother of Trig, a child in God’s image.
Palin, Social Snobbery, and the Armed Forces
There is no doubt in my mind that a good bit of the opposition to Sarah Palin is a disgusting form of snobbery. Palin talks “funny” and went to the wrong schools. She hunts and likes blue-collars sports like hockey. She is from the parts of the country, rural or urban, that are supposed to serve their betters, not rule them.
If you are from West Virginia, like I am, you are tempted to vote for Sarah Palin just to tell the bigots off. God help me, but those dismissive of the possibility that anything good can come from Alaska madden me.
Some in our culture expect the sons of Alaska, West Virginia, and disadvantaged urban areas like Compton to fight and die to protect them while they sniff and sneer and carefully keep their mercenaries away from real power.
When Wall Street receives billions in federal boodle, while Main Street is shuttered, Palin looks better to me.
When the brightest and the best of our elite schools, rob us of our freedoms and our future, then the folks in the forgotten places have a right to wonder if anything could be worse.
Palin’s son volunteered to fight for freedom, because people like the Palins always volunteer to fight for our freedoms. God bless her son and God bless her for the firm resolution that she will stand with the regular folks that are too often forgotten.
That part of Palin is refreshing and bracing. It almost makes up for the mumbled political philosophy.
Almost.
Because though elitism is bad, so is anti-elitism. Education and experience are not without value and the examined life is still the best life. The folks that make America work are not perfect, but there is a wisdom in their experiences not taught in books.
My grandparents were great people and I admire them more than most of our so called leaders today.
But.
One of my grandfathers wisely would not accept certain promotions at his work, because he knew the limits of his experiences. It was unfair, but he didn’t have the chance to learn what he need to know.
Commonsense is not always enough. Sometimes you have to know the details of your philosophy, especially as a leader.
Let me be honest as I know how to be. Most of the Republican Party seems just as self-interested as the Democrats. I have seen and heard party bosses mock religious voters behind closed doors. Nobody is fool enough to believe that Pelosi or Reid are any brighter than Palin . . . and Pelosi is responsible for worse writing.
Palin could give Harry Reid two laps in a leadership race and still beat him to the finish line.
That does not mean Palin is the right leader.
Palin frustrates me, because she has charisma and to spare. She gives as good a set speech as anyone in her generation . . . and she is obviously very bright. She is an authentic outsider, but seems unwilling to do the work to raze hell.
Those that stereotype and dismiss her would be easy to destroy, if she would just take the time to read the books she cites. Many of her critics are sexist and complacent in their arrogant assumption that she is stupid, but a book like this one does nothing to defeat them.
Palin will make money and satisfy her base, but she could do and be so much more. She has once-in-a-generation talents, but at the moment there is too little evidence that there are connected with any ideas that go beyond slogans.
When Palin was a vice-presidential candidate, I scoffed at people who thought she should wonk out. That was not her job. She was a pit bull, because she had to be. It was her job, but she has had a year to brush up and four hundred pages in which to argue her case and she has not done so.
To paraphrase an old commercial, “Where is the beef?”
It was not in her chapter on being governor. There was no vision . . . and Sarah Palin knows that if there is no vision the people perish. It would not have enough for Moses to know that his people needed to be let go, if he had not been able to organize thousands of people to march out of Egypt.
This book is an agony for those looking for a vision for the nation in these difficult times. Where is the detailed vision for an alternative future to Obama?
And for those who say that this is not what this book was about, then what is it about? It is no true autobiography. It is a political book written by a politician.
It has pages on campaign details and policy fights, but it does not explain in common language or any other kind of language where the campaigns and the policies are going. It is as if Palin is running hard in a general direction without knowing exactly where she is going.
Philosophy in this degenerate age can be a vanity . . . and is often a vanity. We talk and talk and people starve while we talk some more. Palin is right that her job is to act, but the very phrase “vain philosophy” implies that there is a true love of wisdom and just ending the vanity does not begin the wisdom.
Practical wisdom is guided not just by common sense, but by reason and the experiences of generations of wise people from ages past. Palin knows this is true, but shows no knowledge of it.
Don’t tell me a plain speaking book has to be this devoid of ideas. Read Lincoln. He could get big ideas across in simple ways to farmers with primary school educations. Read Reagan. He was not Lincoln, but he did the same thing in a television age. When I was a kid, I read Conscience of a Conservative in some yellowing paperback and it made sense to me. For heaven’s sake, read William Jennings Bryan who sent the Grange through the roof with prose that sounds positively dialogicala compared to this book!
Teddy Roosevelt could thunder and denounce with the best of them, but he could write a book. Dwight Eisenhower won a war and then had someone ghost an awesome account of that win. If Palin is running for President, we needed more.
We don’t need a philosopher president, but we do need someone who can make our cause appear plausible to the half persuaded.
I want to like Palin. I love many things about her politics, but where oh where oh where are the ideas?
I hope I am wrong.
Chapter Four
At last the chapter for which we have all been waiting: Sarah Palin is picked as McCain’s running mate. For those of us who were Palin fans before the announcement it is is interesting to read what was happening behind the news stories.
Palin was treated badly by the media. They sneered at her like she was a Window user at a Mac convention. She was hit harder than anyone I have ever seen . . . and the McCain camp was not ready. They mishandled the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy by not getting ahead of the story. Instead, they had a weird desire to probe her theistic evolutionist views (“creationism” in the most liberal sense of the term).
Palin comes across well in the opening of the chapter. She was hit by stuff nobody prepared her for and it is easy to forget that her first two encounters on the national stage were grand slams. I think her convention speech the best of either convention.
She was boffo.
Conservatives should never give up on a talent like Palin as long as she can lead and give speeches like that! She made my entire family cheer for John McCain, a task more difficult than most.
Oddly, this part of the book is the least revealing. We have heard most of it before, but I think the idea that she is “vengeful” is nonsense. She settles some scores and answers lies she thinks has been told about her.
She does not strike me as vengeful about it.
Her description of her speechwriter Matthew Scully reminded me of what could have been. She references my friend the Crunchy Con Rod Dreher . . . one of the first conservatives she later lost.
Palin would control the nomination process if she had more Scully in her. Can she do it? I don’t know.
Conservatives that think Palin critics are all RINOs are wrong. I thought (and still think) that Dreher abandoned Palin too quickly. . . though this book has forced me to the conclusion that he may have been right in his judgment. If you are hasty, but right, then you are still too hasty!
There are of course RINO’s out there, but when Palin lost Dreher and others disposed to like her there was a problem. The McCain campaign may have picked her before she was ready, or utterly and disastrously mishandled her, or both.
The weirdest thing about this chapter is that Palin constantly talks about Palin talking to people about policy, but the details given to the reader are all about clothes and campaign chat which she allegedly hated. Now I know geekery about Iraq might have sold fewer books, but did her publisher make her talk about what she claims to have not cared about and not write about what she did care about?
Did the rogue obey her publisher?
Or did she write about what actually excited her?
It is hard to take her policy wonkery seriously when the details are all elsewhere. When a man claims to love the Packers, he should not always be talking about the Vikings or his friends will begin to doubt his interests.
Palin was candid about how she hated being screened from the press. The campaign’s handling of this was a disaster! Why didn’t they let her warm up with Alaska press and friendly reporters from day one? Why did they hide her?
Obviously, their strategy took a huge public asset and tarnished it badly. It is hard to imagine any other idea going worse!
I thought her explanation of the Couric interview was excellent if the full tape of the interview backs her up. Why didn’t the campaign have someone making their own copy of the full interview? I am just a teacher and I know to do that!
Couric should release the whole tape if she has not done so already and let us make up our minds. Palin has charged her with abusive editing and now Ms. Couric should let the truth be known.
I doubt she dares.
The story of the campaign was not new to me, but it reminded me that Palin was the only good thing, at least for a brief moment, that happened to the McCain campaign. John McCain certainly did not lose because he picked Sarah Palin.
Palin should have been given more policy speeches, but Palin could be giving them now, could have written a book chock-a-block full of them, but she chose not to do so. She cannot blame the campaign for that.
If Palin is not running for office again, then I don’t blame her for telling her story, getting her handsome check, and doing something nice for her family. If she is running for office, she should have said more about policy and less about celebrities in this section.
There is no discussion of the economy or foreign policy in her description of the campaign. This is disappointing, because it plays to her critics.
As I have worked on this long, long, live commentary I have already started getting nasty email. This has caused me to reflect on whether I have been too hard on Sarah Palin.
I think not. The only way I know to admire a person is to take their work (and a book is serious work) seriously. Did Palin take it as seriously?
Chapter Five
I have changed my mind about one issue by the end of this book. Palin’s resignation as governor now makes a good deal of sense to me. The media pressure and ethics complaints did not fade away and she was no longer able to do her job.
I thought her resignation nearly a “deal breaker,” but that was a hasty judgment on my part.
Surely the day will come when the media will tire of kicking Palin and then she will get peace. Some will argue that Palin is getting rich off of her media exposure, but this is a shoddy justification for treating a patriot badly.
One reason I hesitated in starting this project was that I feared I would not like the book as much as I wished and I did not want to add to the people piling on Palin. She is a real person and a sister in Christ.
Of course, with good luck she will never see my long cry-of-the-heart and I am sure if she did would laugh it off (“What’s with is Plato obsession?”) as an academic-nerd-boy all excited about nothing.
She sells in her millions and I in my hundreds!
In any case this chapter reminded me of what much Palin gave up to run for Vice President. Money cannot replace it. Money cannot shut the mouths of the cruel bloggers who accuse her of being a womb raider and not the mother of Trigg.
Palin deserves thanks for standing up for my values and I am thankful.
Being President is not like being governor of Alaska in one sense. At the end of the campaign, Sarah’s enemies kept attacking, but she did not have any formal structure to defend her. She created a network eventually, but she was being overwhelmed with national-level attacks inside a structure meant for state of Alaska level issues.
I don’t think, therefore, that her “quitting” in Alaska can be compared to “quitting” as President (if she were elected). In fact, her resigning appears to be for the good of the state.
Of course, she also was able to “cash in” more easily on her fame . . . so motives, as always in fallen humanity, are mixed!
The more I read about the treatment of Palin after the election, the angrier I grow. She was treated unjustly and the “system” had no way of protecting a failed vice-presidential candidate from continued national scrutiny and attack. There really was no precedent for it.
Her cry of the heart about all of this is not “whining,” but her only way of getting justice and some peace. I hope this book makes her a packet and she goes on to do great things. The most disgusting thing about it all has been the exploitation of the young father of her grandchild.
Critics may say she “exploited” him by having him at the convention, but it seems to me that she offered him a gentleman’s way. She treated him with dignity and as part of the family. Every pol has their family at the conventions. Imagine if she had left him at home!
This young man’s life pattern is now so predictable that I can write the tabloid headlines of his fall. Palin “exploited him” alright: if he has listened to her, he would be married to a beautiful young lady, a proud dad, and working to finish school and starting college. Instead his new “friends” are putting him in pin up poses and sucking his brain dry for any stories that can be used to hurt his baby’s grandmother.
The baby will grow up to read the stories.
It would be a Greek tragedy if there were a hero at the center and not some poor mixed up Alaskan boy who did the wrong thing, at the wrong time, to the wrong person.
The Palin family deserves every bit of money they make on this book.
Sadly, the Presidency is not a consolation prize. The flaw of this book is that it begins to describe a righteous cause that goes beyond grievance, but it fritters away its intellectual energy in errors, bad arguments, and bromides.
In Palin the medium appears to be the message, but the medium is listening to no voice save her own instincts.
Chapter Six
Here at last I will get to read the Palin agenda for the future. If she is going to run for President, here is her manifesto . . . but there are too few pages left for that.
Here at least I will get a glimpse of what she wants for the nation. I will not demand too much of this chapter and will hope that at long last I can see the glimmers of a plan, a platform, a plausible path to the White House.
Of course, if she is not running for office, or even considering it, then I am demanding too much. The last chapter, however, was fill with indications she wants more. She quit to get her message out after all. As I have already said, that seems valid.
Now here at last is a summary of her message.
This is starting very well. Her appeal and explanation of tradition and of the constrained vision is well-written and succinct. It is also tied into a broad and defensible philosophical tradition. Woo! Hoo!
Here at last is a promising start at a platform that is neither Wall Street sycophant or UC Berkeley pandering.
I like the bit about free markets, but there is no bridge to connect it to tradition. This creates an obvious tension. It can be resolved, but Palin has not resolved it. Are market values the highest values? What of graft and corruption? What of the interface between big business and big government?
There is plenty to say about this, but Palin does not even give us a transition paragraph to show that she is aware of the tension between market forces and tradition.
Palin hammers effectively at the corruption in both parties. She is right that the GOP squandered its small government legacy, but she takes a pass on putting any of the blame on Bush. Perhaps it is just as well, since that decent man has received enough blows from his critics to last a lifetime. We all know what she means.
Sigh.
It would have been better to say absolutely nothing about foreign policy than to say nothing in a few paragraphs. This reads like a throw away paragraph in a domestic policy speech given in haste to a Rotary Club.
You know this chapter is upsetting to me for a simple reason. I know hundreds of under-thirty men and women who could write a better eleven pages than this off the top of their heads. Palin was given a platform of great promise with this book . . . she was going to sell hundreds of thousands of copies no matter what she wrote . . . and she gave us a final chapter less structured and less insightful than blog posts I have read from students during the election.
The problem is not the brevity of the chapter or its simplicity. It is that after a promising start it becomes vague and without a trace of going rogue. It is conventional GOP campaign fodder without a trace of a new idea. Tell us where to cut. Tell us what not to spend. Tell us anything specific to go with the generalities.
O.K.
If you tell me this chapter is meant to rouse us, then as rhetoric it is also an epic fail. Here there is no passion, no blood throbbing with the excitement of a new day, or a call to national greatness. Here is a complaint and a justifiable pique, but not even a full throat howl of rage. This is is weak tea as a rousing Saint Crispen’s Day speech.
This chapter is too thin to be nourishing and too homely to be inspiring. A Bill Buckley at such a moment would have given us a lesson and taught us something. A Henry V would have rallied the troops with passionate rhetoric to win the day.
Palin had the chance to Buckley or to Henry V, but instead she twittered.
She wants us to stand and fight and many of us are ready for such a call, but she does not tell us in enough specifics where to stand and what to fight. It would be, perhaps, acceptable if we were already at Agincourt with enemy ahead, but even then the rhetoric fails. It is not moving. It is not authentic. It is not bit roguish, but it is rougish . . . the appearance of health covering up the absence.
In Summary: Ten Things I Learned From Reading Going Rogue
This was a bad and unhelpful book. It was not bad because it was simple. Goldwater (or his ghost) used fewer pages in Conscience of a Conservative and said more. It was not bad because it was autobiographical. Though I don’t like his politics, President Obama confessed more and said it better in Dreams from My Father. If you don’t believe that this book is bad, then read (really do!) Ronald Reagan’s autobiography Where’s the Rest of Me? Ronald Reagan showed more substance in his delightful book written mostly about his time as an actor than Palin shows in her four hundred pages.
Reagan (or his ghost) did not write a wonk book. It is very, very readable, but it wrestles with ideas even in the context of a film star career! It is not Plato, but it is interesting and makes you want to talk to the man who wrote it. There is a man behind the book, though Reagan had help writing it the Gipper is in every paragraph, but there is only a ghost of a personality in the corporate machine written Going Rogue.
The best you can say about this book is that it is forgettable and will be forgotten. It is a book-of-the-moment non-book meant to be purchased and given as a Christmas gift to conservatives. It is an utter waste of an opportunity for something better, but it is no worse than most political “memoirs” of its type.
It is better than Pelosi, but damning a person with that comparison is almost too cruel after what Palin has endured.
What are the ten things the book taught me?
First, Palin is a unique political talent, but her abilities do not extend to the written word. That is too bad, because our best politicians may use a ghost at times, but they also know words and do not fear them. Reagan is a great example of this. He could write. Of course, that does not mean she should not be President, but it does limit her.
Her publisher did not fact check this book well (if at all). She was badly served by her publisher and editor. People who criticize me for nit-picking her use of quotations miss the point. I am a fan . . . though now a weary one . . . and I found the errors. The publisher had to know that her critics would check every fact.
How can I in a single day with no help find error after error when I am no writer, no editor (as this blog post indicates), and no specialist?
Second, Sarah Palin has not grown in the year since the election. Those of us who hoped that Palin had been “hidden” by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.
She is smart, but not book-smart. She has common sense, but not practical wisdom. These are not fatal flaws, but she shows no signs of changing or recognizing them. You only shame yourself by appending Googled spuriou slogans assigned to philosophers to your previous views.
Third, Palin uses four hundred pages to give her side of things, but I am still at a loss to describe her political or governing philosophy in any detail. President Obama is sickening us all on the academic as commander-in-chief. She is the opposite of President Obama, but the opposite of excess is defect and not virtue. Again, Reagan wrote a breeze easy autobiography from which you could discern a serious man, so it is not the fact that this is no dissertation.
Fourth, Palin has the makings of a splendid executive and is a gifted speaker. She could learn what she needs to know, but my fear after reading this book is that she does not care to learn it.
The book is not intellectually roguish, but intellectually rougish. It covers up something with the appearance of health, but we are left to wonder what is being covered up.
Fifth, Palin was an effective mayor and governor. McCain destroyed that promise with his doomed campaign. This is another reason to curse the 2008 election.
Sixth, Palin is most effective in new media because the way it is typically used plays to her strengths. However, it also encourages her weaknesses as it tends to build a like minded community with too little criticism and allows her to stick to sound bites and generalities.
Seventh, Palin uses books as entertainment, to get information, and to confirm beliefs. I see no evidence she reads as an intellectual adventure or to change her mind. This is dangerous in a political leader as it tends to make leadership personality driven rather than idea driven.
Eighth, Palin is sensitive to the charge she is “dumb,” but has not been given the tools or the teachers who can help her. (Has she sought them out?) She needs teachers who assume her intelligence, who challenge her, and speak her Evangelical language. Such teachers (see Moreland, J.P.) exist and she should seek them out.
Ninth, Palin has been abused by the culture and is justifiably hurt and enraged.
Tenth, if Palin does not run for President, then all of this is much ado about little. She seems a splendid person who has lived a remarkable life, even if this book did nothing much to help us see this truth.
Sadly, I now believe the burden of proof has shifted. While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them.
I have not given up on Palin and find much in her to admire, but she would not get my primary vote based on this book and what I know about her to date. I hope I am wrong and am open to changing my mind.
She has more promise than any Republican candidate I can name and I still have hopes for Sarah Palin, but hope needs substance or it becomes a disillusioned faith.
Related posts:
November 27th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #1
I had to chuckle to myself when you started off with, “This is not a well written book so far.” There is no way I can honestly believe that Sarah Palin is a serious reader. I am sorry, but that does not ring true for me at all. And the fact that you cannot find evidence of the quote she ascribes to Plato is interesting. And also scary because most of the people reading this book will not realize that this is a misplaced reference. Most of the population reading this book does not have the education you have, and many people will take the book at face value.
I am a conservative Christian, and I have not been a fan of Palin’s from the beginning. I really hope Romney gets the Republican ticket.
Thanks again for this interesting post. I found it enlightening–and somewhat amusing as well.
November 27th, 2009 | 6:16 pm | #2
Your review of chapter 1 may actually be longer than chapter 1.
November 27th, 2009 | 6:30 pm | #3
Whew! That took a while.
I sometimes wonder if she is the Ronnie of the 60s and 70s. When he was Gov. of Calif., could he have beat LBJ? Who knows. A premature entry onto the national scene would have left him damaged, and the 80s would likely not have been the same. She nees to take a 10-year break, to learn and grow. I only hope that there has not been too much damage done.
November 27th, 2009 | 6:54 pm | #4
And I am only half way through the book . . .
November 27th, 2009 | 8:09 pm | #5
When I read something like, “The fact that Sarah Palin has a womb has apparently caused some critics such as Andrew Sullivan to lose their minds,” and wish I had written it, it makes me happy.
November 27th, 2009 | 8:46 pm | #6
My live blog of reading JMR’s live blog of reading this book:
Judas Priest, Doc: it’s a memoir and not a dissertation. Mrs. Palin is no Solon, and has probably never written in anything resembling academic style standards. However, in spite of Rush Limbaugh’s fawning over this book, there’s no way this book is worth fisking like this.
Mrs. Palin reminds all of us why we are Americans and like the American way. But she’s the reality TV version of a politician, which is really saying something. She isn’t going to make it to November 2012. Relax.
November 27th, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #7
Dear Frank,
Yes, you are, without a doubt right. It is not a dissertation. However, I do think if you are going to quote Plato you should have read what you are quoting and the quote should, well, exist.
I did not advise her to quote Plato.
I have taken five chillax pills, but Palin asked us to think about her book . . . and so I am.
John Mark
November 27th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #8
I should add that I have friends who take Palin very seriously so I am trying to follow their argument and take her seriously as well.
So far, not so good.
November 27th, 2009 | 9:46 pm | #9
Inexplicable decision? Funny way to start a review given that you do offer an explanation later on.
She did explain her decision at the time, and I found her explanation quite plausible. She said she was devoting so much time and money to responding to the idiotic slander and baseless corruption charges, government time and money in enough cases, that she thought she was doing Alaska a disservice by remaining in office when she had a stellar Lt.Gov. who could step in pretty easily and take over, leaving her to get those affairs in order while also taking the advice of several pundits who said she ought to take some time off to bone up on national issues that she’s not as familiar with as she should be.
I don’t like the standard of quotation in popular works like this, but this is pretty common. Usually it comes from someone seeing a quote in another work they read, and that person hadn’t cited a proper source either. It doesn’t show that she doesn’t read. We just have no idea where she pulled these quotes from. As a quick Google search reveals, there’s no shortage of people attributing this quote to Plato, so it’s not as if she’s found one source attributing to that but could have known otherwise with a quick web search.
November 27th, 2009 | 10:02 pm | #10
Evangel? This post has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is not good news for Sarah or her fans and is completely devoid of God’s Good News.
November 27th, 2009 | 10:51 pm | #11
Jeremy:
This is a live blog of my reading. I offer a charitable explanation as I go . . . you can follow my thinking as the post unfolds. It is not done as a “finished piece” and I change my mind on some issues as I go. I came to think Palin’s explanation plausible by chapter 3 of the book as I understood her style better.
There is no excuse in my opinion for quoting books you have not read. I try not to do it in a blog post and I assume as a serious candidate for Vice-President Palin should be held to a higher standard than pot-boiler stuff.
Have we so devalued intellectual discourse that someone can quote two spurious sources in less than 100 pages and we don’t care at all?
I hope we care just a bit . . . though I don’t think (by any means) that it is disqualifying.
I worked hard for Palin and had a high view of her from the moment she was picked. If I doubt now, these doubts irritate me . . . I want to like her, but this book has not (so far!) helped me resolve those doubts.
To others:
As for the Evangel . . . the good news presumes acceptance of the bad news first . . . and I assume I was asked here to write about what I am thinking and reading and not just sermonize (much as I like to sermonize).
John Mark
November 27th, 2009 | 11:19 pm | #12
I should add that one other quote I checked (Lou Holtz) had serious problems. Therefore, all 3 quotations that I had questions about turned out to be bad.
That does not seem promising for the rest.
November 28th, 2009 | 12:41 am | #13
I will say that I don’t find the “quick Google search” compelling as the list contains no place with an actual citation.
There is a lesson there.
November 28th, 2009 | 12:44 am | #14
Let me add another reason to care about the Plato and Aristotle misquotes. The only real reason to use such things in the case of a person who has never read Plato or Aristotle is puffery . . . and when the quotes are not even real it undermines even that.
I would admire Palin’s sentiments in both cases without the ridiculous illusion that she drew them from the Greeks . . . which we know is false since they are not from the sources cited.
November 28th, 2009 | 4:39 am | #15
You state… “The book is given to stating things as if we will know their truth by their merely being said”
It sounds like you wanted Palin to write a debate just like your blog. Dear God that would really make the book as boring as reading your blog. It sounds like you enjoy hearing yourself talk, while Palin’s books comes from the heart. She is popular and you are not. I feel your pain.
November 28th, 2009 | 5:00 am | #16
Dear Texshep,
No, I certainly would not write a book (which I have done) like I write this “live blog” of my reading of this book.
As a book it would be amazingly dull.
She is certainly much more popular than I am . . . and she does speak from the heart.
None of this causes me pain.
Tex: please consider that I backed Palin in 2008 in print and on the radio even against personal friends. I am not “bashing” her . . . really. I just am disappointed in this book.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:08 am | #17
John,
If the book is as you describe, I share your disappointment. (I haven’t read it myself.)
Regarding the three questionable quotes: No, it’s not a dissertation. But neither is it a memoir written for the sake of memoir-ing.
My impression is that it’s a re-presentation of herself to the American public, part of an attempt to establish herself in more people’s minds as a legitimate candidate. She wants to get past the criticisms that have plagued her (fairly or unfairly).
In that context, the quotes look like counter-productive puffery. She needs to establish her substance, not present a veneer of substance.
Hopefully, she does a better job in the rest of the book. Hopefully she actually has the substance she needs. Even if she never does well at appearing substantive, I’d much rather see substance with no flash than flash with no substance.
But is it too much to hope for both?
November 28th, 2009 | 11:02 am | #18
From http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20091124_Sideshow__Who_s_Palin_quoting_.html :
Not to undermine Palin’s écriture, but she may want to fix a tiny mistake. She attributes the lovely quote used as an epigraph for Chapter 3 to a curious source, John Wooden. (The basketball coach?) The quote – “Our land is everything to us . . . I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember that our grandfathers paid for it – with their lives” – is actually from Cheyenne chief John Wooden Leg.
I find this hilarious because this seemingly rah-rah flag-waving quote means the exact opposite of what Palin thinks it means: “You have to revere the soldiers of the past who fought for our freedoms” – when the actuality is the grandfathers he’s talking about were killed by Americans in the nineteenth century trying to take their land.
November 28th, 2009 | 12:28 pm | #19
Being President is not like being governor of Alaska in one sense. At the end of the campaign, Sarah’s enemies kept attacking, but she did not have any formal structure to defend her. She created a network eventually, but she was being overwhelmed with national-level attacks on a structure meant for state of Alaska level issues.
I don’t think, therefore, that her “quitting” in Alaska can be compared to “quitting” as President (if she were elected). In fact, her resigning appears to be for the good of the state.
Of course, she also was able to “cash in” more easily on her fame . . . so motives as always in fallen humanity are mixed!
November 28th, 2009 | 2:26 pm | #20
No. It is not too much to ask for substance and flash.
I refuse to vote for anyone without substance.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:49 pm | #21
I am sure anyone silly enough to read this far is glad this endless post is done, but I am just as glad. That was a hard slog.
November 28th, 2009 | 3:35 pm | #22
“There is no excuse in my opinion for quoting books you have not read…”
Sorry John, but that line right there is about a close to intellectual snobbery as one can get. Why shouldn’t people do that?
And this..
“Have we so devalued intellectual discourse that someone can quote two spurious sources in less than 100 pages and we don’t care at all?”
Do you really look at this book as intellectual discourse?
November 28th, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #23
Daryl,
You should not quote books you have not read, because:
1. you often get the context wrong and misuse the quote.
2. you often run afoul of spurious quotations.
3. it suggest you have read something you have not read.
In general, truth matters and we should get things as right as we can.
I did look at the book as intellectual discourse. It promised me that it would give me Palin’s “way forward for America.”
I take Sarah Palin seriously, I take America seriously, I take her ideas seriously.
Do you NOT take her seriously? Should I have picked up a four hundred page book and assumed it was error riddled fluff, but that is o.k. because it was just for the folks?
How condescending is that? People are not well served when it is assumed any old dumb thing will do for us if it strokes our egos and tells us what we believe.
That is the real snobbery.
My grandfather never got to go to high school, but he wanted his political heroes (men like Bob Taft and Eisenhower) to give it to him straight and to get it right. He wanted men of substance.
He read his paper and his King James Bible every day and he would have had no time for books like “Going Rogue” that take his hard earned money, but don’t bother with the most basic fact check.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:00 pm | #24
Your analysis is very interesting, especially your ten concluding points, which I think are an accurate summary of her stengths and weaknesses.
As a candidate for national office, Sarah Palin has been a disappointment for me.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #25
Thank you for this detailed review. Personally, I was aghast at her convention speach. Palpable arrogance, belittling, even hate is what I took away. Perhaps, she couldn’t govern after the campaign because she changed so much on the circuit even lied. She accepted so it’s on her. Being a pitbull has its downsides. Imagine being an Alaskan listening to her say she never supported the bridge. I would be incensed (and probably laughing). So, I think Sarah had something to do with her problems after the election.
Basically, I find her exhortations of the troops, the bible, her family, and the constitution as a sham and a place to hide.
I don’t find much positive in Sarah. So thanks for pointing out a few things. I will give her this like you said: she is a self-made woman. The way you put this made me give her some respect. I will temper this with the fact she has an uncredited ghost and she is a proven liar.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:58 pm | #26
[...] has paid Sarah Palin the high compliment of taking her seriously and reading her book carefully and blogging through it chapter-by-chapter. He also offers ten final observations upon completion of the [...]
November 28th, 2009 | 7:58 pm | #27
I find such quote mining just as appalling as you do, but it does look like the practice has become all too common. A quick search on Google Books shows variations of the supposed Aristotle quote showing up all over the place from the mid-nineties onwards. It looks to be quite popular in leadership/management circles. Perhaps that’s what Palin was reading. Just not Aristotle.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:02 pm | #28
Excellent review – unbiased, sympathetic – yet not very positive. A working educated mother who puts tremendous value on her family and to whom parenting always was and still is the most important job in life, despite all my career achievements, I have been asking myself: why is that I disliked Palin from the very beginning? John McCain was MY candidate since year 2000, yet, I voted against. Not against him, but against Palin.
John Reynolds summed it up very nicely. Not to brag about it, I think that as a woman, I intuitively assessed Palin much quicker than men.
As a woman, I could not give her another chance and another chance despite her intellectual shallowness, her infatuation with celebrity and fame, her inability to admit to any mistakes, her lack of self-humor. She is so insecure in her perceived self-confidence – as a woman I see through it. She does not forgive and she does not forget anything that did not play to her rise. A manager myself, I can see that she is not a team person. She is a lone player and I will never entrust the country of 300 million people to someone who does not know how to delegate, trust, grow the talent other than her own. Being a good manager and leader requires a person to have humility and ability to hide one’s own ego for the sake of the team’s objective, to accept often unpleasant criticism of the subordinates and to learn from the critique. And stay cool about it. Yes, cool, like Obama, give him credit for rarely loosing his cool.
I don’t see it in her. Sorry, as much as I want to have a woman at the top job in this country, as much as I believe that women often make better managers than men because they are used to running families and managing kids (not an easy task), I don’t think Palin is the right woman for the job. Sorry folks. Time will come, but not for her.
In my humble opinion, Sarah is not Ronald. At least the man knew how to make fun of himself, even at a critical time. She does not and I don’t think she ever will.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #29
Thank you for your analysis of the book. I just want to make a point about higher education and Palin’s rail against “elitism”. In America, the Ivy League universities and other top colleges employ “need blind” admission. Every student who cannot afford the $50,000+ fees is given grants, work study and small loans to make it possible. A student need not be rich or privileged to go to a top college. One only needs to be bright, hard working, and fascinated by ideas. That is how someone like Bill Clinton went to Yale, Barack Obama to Harvard, and my own two sons who were raised in a family that would be labled the “working poor” (single mom who qualified each year for the Earned Income Credit) to Brown and Columbia. So Sarah can stop whining about elitist Ivy League education. Everyone in this country has a crack at joining that club. That is one of the many reasons I love America.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:45 pm | #30
Yes. I should say that I owe the University of Rochester a great deal (for Modrak and Geier especially) and they charged me . . . nothing.
God bless them everyone.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #31
I don’t think the author knows knows what paraphrase means.
Also, too, (tossin’ in some Sarah-speak for ya *wink*) it seems that every time the word “obviously” was used, what followed was not so much factual as an opinion of what the author WISHES were true.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:09 pm | #32
In my office, I have a little sign that reads: “To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
—Clarence Thomas
The internet attributes the quote to Elbert Hubbard. This doesn’t speak well of Palin or her ghostwriter.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:13 pm | #33
I do know paraphrase. I checked Palin in reverse translation to see if her quotes were remotely right.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:14 pm | #34
The quotes were not paraphrases of Plato or Aristotle.
November 28th, 2009 | 10:51 pm | #35
I appreciate this balanced review and the thoughtful comments. It counteracts the Palin fanatics’ claims that anyone who is not an uncritical fan of Mrs. Palin is a “hater” or is a liberal who “fears” her.
However, I do take issue with a couple of ideas expressed here.
First, that “Palin’s son volunteered to fight for freedom, because people like the Palins always volunteer to fight for our freedoms”. Track Palin’s service is of course commendable and worthy of respect, and probably does reflect a learned value of duty toward country.
However, “the Palins” aside from Track have not volunteered to fight for our freedoms. Mrs. Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, did not serve, nor did her mother, as far as I am able to find out.
Todd Palin’s father served in the Army, but Todd did not; neither Todd nor Sarah Palin joined the full-time military, nor did either of them join the Alaska National Guard.
Military service is not an absolute shibboleth for me, but it is a factor in considering a person’s sincerity in talking the talk about patriotism. In the absence of health problems that disqualify one from service (and both of them are reportedly quite healthy and athletic), I do not like to see people who aspire to political leadership give lip service to military service when they have not walked the walk.
Second, it’s naive to buy into Mrs. Palin’s claims that she hates “deals” and “power brokers”, that she opposes special interests, and that she has and will continue to “throw the rascals out”. It’s possible that she actually believes this characterization of herself. However, the truth is that she opposes deals, power brokers, and special interests who do not support her, and is willing to engage in all the old-fashioned political games with those who might benefit her. Her shrugging off of ethics complaints (the famous “jacket with a logo” incident actually runs far deeper, into issues of untruthfulness on financial disclosure reports and possible undue influence on environmental decision-making) makes it look like the complainants are just crackpots. Are they? Should a Governor use private email accounts that can’t be traced by freedom-of-information access, to conduct state business? Should the Governor’s spouse, at the time an oil-company employee, be given access to information that is not available to the public? I think these are serious questions, and not just the rantings of nuts – although, to be sure, there has been some of that as well.
Again, thanks for your interesting review. It’s very refreshing to see someone apply actual thought to such an article, instead of just taking a side and defending it against all rational discussion.
November 28th, 2009 | 11:05 pm | #36
“I greatly admire the actions of this mother of Tripp, a child in God’s image.”
The mother of Tripp is an unwed teen – not all that admirable.
November 28th, 2009 | 11:58 pm | #37
Thank you for commenting on Going Rogue from a conservative and open to Sarah viewpoint. I have been skeptical from the moment she emerged on stage as Palin the pitbull. Although I realize that the VP candidate is often given that role, I don’t feel any urge to have a pitbull in lipstick as possible leader, and that introduction lost me from the get go. To carelessly toss in a quote I have seen a couple times recently (Ghandi?) that I am too lazy to Google right now, ‘If someone tells you what they are, believe them.’ Your reading allows me to consider Sarah Pitbull Palin through another’s viewpoint, less harsh or skeptical, than my own. I would admit it is partisanship/orientation that you are disappointed and I am vindicated while we seem to feel quite similarly about each chapter. While you ask where is the substance, policy, etc., I ask why the smallness, the pettiness, the squandering of such a once in a lifetime, gamechanging opportunity, the open stage in your own persona with the world as your oyster. Thanks, JMR.
November 29th, 2009 | 12:06 am | #38
What stands out to me about Sarah Palin’s story of her life and times is the frequency of situations and events where her perception is that someone was threatening her, sabotaging her, misrepresenting her, or in some way or other, screwing her over.
Palin seems to have a hair-trigger sensitivity to being wronged. For this reason alone, she does not seem temperamentally suited for a life in politics, let alone life in a position of leadership and responsibility.
About those quotes. That first one attributed to Plato might be from Philo (20 BC- 40AD) but it sure sounds like an echo in paraphrase from Desiderata — http://www.snopes.com/language/document/desiderata.asp As much as Aristotle, at least in English translation, seems given to parallel structure, it seems highly unlikely that this precise and pragmatic Greek thinker would ever have used the expression being nothing.
November 29th, 2009 | 12:10 am | #39
Thanks for catching my error in the names (the Palin’s names confused me through the whole book!). I, of course, meant Trigg and I will correct this error in the original post.
November 29th, 2009 | 12:14 am | #40
Not that it really matters, but they spell Trig with only one “g.”
November 29th, 2009 | 12:16 am | #41
Well, I think I will just give up on the Palin names.
Just call me tired.
November 29th, 2009 | 12:27 am | #42
LOL! I only know because she’s been talking (and writing) publicly about them since she ran for city council in Wasilla back in the early 90’s. Poor kids.
Can you believe I don’t even know Governor Parnell’s kids’ names. Crazy, huh? Then again, maybe he doesn’t feel he needs to use them as human shields.
November 29th, 2009 | 12:53 am | #43
Interesting blog post on Ms. Palin’s book. Throughout your post, you seem expectant of substance from Ms. Palin and are disappointed when that substance is not realized. I’m not a fan of Ms. Palin and consequently am mystified how educated, intelligent people have trouble comprehending that the substance is just not there. Your following excellent quote shows that you are aware of this conflict in your own mind:
“The book is not intellectually roguish, but intellectually rougish. It covers up something with the appearance of health, but we are left to wonder what is being covered up.”
Congratulations. You just articulated a very polite way of describing Ms. Palin’s proclivity for fabrication (also polite for “lying”). You’re almost there….
November 29th, 2009 | 1:36 am | #44
If Sarah was a serious politician with serious ambitions, she would have spend the last months learning, studying and growing. Instead, she chose to catalog past slights, wounds and injustices. Nothing is ever her fault. She did not prepare for the Couric interview, yet it was Katie’s fault for not asking enough questions about Alaska.
It seems clear that Sarah left office in order to cash in on her book deal and speaking offers. She is hot right now. There are also other, more critical and balanced books that will be coming out next year. She needed to get out in front of them.
I appreciate the blogger taking the time to think through each chapter and offer thoughtful consideration. Sarah has great talents in connecting with people in a winning way. But do not be fooled by her Face Book posts; she may not be the author anymore than she actually wrote “Going Rogue” herself. If she does not study and think for herself, then she will be easily used by those who will be only too happy to do the thinking for her. It may not be to anyone’s benefit in the long run.
November 29th, 2009 | 1:52 am | #45
Two things disturbed me the most in this book: the constant blaming of subordinates for her failings/mistakes, and the frequency with which she plays fast and loose with the truth. The clunky prose and lack of thought were expected–this is Palin we’re dealing with, after all. But this book shows a vindictive woman who is (still!) obsessed with a journalist who was just doing her job, and her interviews have shown us a 44-yr-old woman obsessed with a 19 year old kid. Not presidentially material.
And as a graduate of the University of Idaho, may I say that I received a wonderful education. So stop blaming my alma mater!
November 29th, 2009 | 3:11 am | #46
H.M.:
In an attempt to be charitable in my reading of Palin, I came across as too harsh on the U of I. Apologies.
I think most general education courses at most places (large edutainment sessions with little human contact) serve the student badly, but the U of I is not unique in this.
John Mark
November 29th, 2009 | 5:04 am | #47
Wow. I stumbled across your blog tonight and may I say, what an inspiration to find someone who has tried to analyze Sarah (and the book) seriously.
I live near Sarah in Alaska. I know her and her family. I have watched Sarah over ten years as mayor, then unemployed stay-at-home-mom, then 10 1/2 month commissioner, then unemployed stay-at-home-mom and then governor.
When she ran for Lt. gov in 2002 I was very enthused to support her. I financially supported her campaign and went to events for and with her. I remember at one debate with the other Republicans running for Lt. Gov that she leaned over and whispered to me, “People want to be told positive things. They don’t like this negative talk.” (The person speaking at the time was a bombastic old boy legislator who lost but was appointed to some post by Frank M).
But. Then.
But then one day, just a few days before the election, a campaign worker for Loren Lehman (who would win the primary and the general and serve under Frank M as Lt. Gov) knocked on my door. I explained that we supported Sarah and would be voting for her (hold on…. I want to make sure this is going to post)
November 29th, 2009 | 5:36 am | #48
Sorry. I won’t be able to post any further right now – but hope to soon. Have just finished reading what Andrew Halcro has written in his wrap-up summation of the book – and it is certainly worth the read. It tells what actual Alaskans who know Sarah think about her and about the book.
November 29th, 2009 | 6:31 am | #49
This is easily the best review/analysis of the Palin tome I have read yet. Much better than slogging through the actual book! (I have other things to do.)
Grammar Nerd Alert. Please fix the para that begins “As a vice-presidential candidate, I scoffed…” I’m just about sure that you were not a vice-presidential candidate.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:14 am | #50
I want to thank you for your post. I haven’t read the book, but intend to check it out from the library.
On the quote mining… one only has to look at how people cherry pick passages from the Bible to support issues that are wildly contrary to the original meaning to understand why quote mining is a bad thing. As has been pointed out above, one quote was actually against the original settlers… but she had no clue and used it in an exact opposite context (of course, that assumes that she is not promoting the return of teritory to native Americans)
I disagree with most comments that say she’s been treated harshly because she is female. American has many female leaders and I don’t think that is the case. She was treated harshly (by some) because she is attractive (proven because she’s earned money on her looks in the past) and has done nothing to show that she has intellect. Worse, when her intellect is challenged, she plays victim. Is this the role model we want for American girls? That if you’re pretty, you don’t have to be smart and when someone calls you dumb, you just cry sexism? There is nothing wrong in admitting that you don’t know something. Yet, I feel that Palin’s ego won’t allow her to admit that she’s recycling the ideals of others (when she hasn’t really thought them through herself).
Finally, I’m interested to know if you’ve taken into account the other fact checking that has been published about this book or have you taken at face value? Have you taken into account the omissions of the book?
Thank you again for the post. I personally voted against Palin for two reasons.
(a) McCain’s advanced age and medical status. The one significant thing a President must be able to do is to strategize, Palin seems unable to concieve of anyone’s views but her own. I cannot imagine her ever being able to participate in strategy planning against an enemy that is not motivated by conservative American ideals.
(b) We know the father of all lies. Palin had been found out several times over, yet continued to tell the same lies. There is no way a person of integrity could tell such trivial lies (e.g. the Bridge to No Where) if there were not an intent to deceive. Yes, all politicians lie, but as a Christian, I’m told to hold my brothers and sisters in Christ accountable. Palin made a point of claiming her Christianity and using it as a “selling point”. So, in her case, it is right that she be held accountable to her faith.
I do believe that God is using Palin, but not in the way her follwers hope. I believe that He is pulling back the veil on the “Christ based cults” that exist out there. We are seeing it through out government. They are being exposed so that there can be no doubt who is following false Gods and who is following the One True God.
I had hoped that this book would have shown that she had reflected on her faith, the Bible and what God calls us to do. Paul told us a leader is specifically NOT divisive. Has this book done anything to end Palin’s divisive effect? If Palin isn’t qualified to lead a flock of believers, how can anyone say that (based on the Bible) she is a candidate to lead a country? As a result, when someone claims to be pro-Palin “because she is Christain”, I find that says more about THEIR faith than anything else.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:33 am | #51
Here’s a link to the piece referenced above written by Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin for governor in 2006: http://tinyurl.com/halcro
November 29th, 2009 | 10:13 am | #52
“She has more promise than any Republican candidate I can name”
After all this spilled prose, that is a weird and depressing conclusion.
November 29th, 2009 | 10:59 am | #53
As is so often the case, an accurate assessment of an issue is easier for the outsider than the devotee wrestling with the blindingly obvious.
Look, Mr. Reynolds, you’re just kicking up dust and complaining about not being able to see.
She’s unfit for office, ok? It’s ok to just come out and say it.
We had 8 years of Bush’s self-certainty and worship of action for its own sake. Team Rove was belligerent and arrogant, and Sarah shows exactly the same inability to look inside.
We know in our bones what we’re going to get if she’s elected. Do not pretend to be surprised if she repeats the mistakes she’s shown until now.
Her book is not meant to be parsed by thoughtful evangelicals, period.
You’re abusing the book, and at this point of reading your liveblogging, it seems almost willfully so.
Stop struggling so hard and just admit the book is nothing more than Evangelical comfort food to kick off her ‘12 campaign. Some thing ARE simple and easy, contra Reagan’s insight.
Don’t study the book, let it wash over you and incite your love of all things Sarah – flag, cheap emotionalism, flag-wrapping, etc, etc.
Respect the genre – you are deliberately misreading this thing.
November 29th, 2009 | 11:47 am | #54
Mona — please come back and finish your post!!
November 29th, 2009 | 12:06 pm | #55
Oops–meant to say “Afraid to use my name”– please come back and finish your post! Got confused b/c Mona referenced Andrew Halcro & assumed she was also from Alaska, when she may or may not be.
Sorry for the confusion.
Either way–”Afraid to use my name” has a story that needs to be heard.
November 29th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #56
I appreciate your wading through Mrs Palin’s book, because I could/would never do it. I did read parts of “Going Rouge”, the book published by editors of the Nation and only available through the publisher.
A couple of points. First of all, VP candidates – of either party – are used as “pitbulls” all the time. They say the partisan things the Presidential candidates don’t say because they want to stay “above the fray”. So, I thought Mrs Palin’s role in the 2008 election was correct. Sen Biden was also a “pitbull” on many occasions during the campaign.
But, Mrs Palin and her supporters scared me then and continue to scare me today. They are racists and bemoan the fact that “their (white) America” is gone. Well, yes, it is. And to have Mrs Palin continue to point out that she appeals to “real Americans” – those mythic creatures existing in the rural areas, untouched by nasty “liberal” values, is sickening to me.
We are now a country of many colors. We are the melting pot of the world and I think it’s great.
The other thing that scares me about Mrs Palin and her supporters are their demeaning of “elitism”. Well, what’s wrong with going to college and trying to improve yourself? What’s wrong with reading? Is the only knowledge worth knowing “home spun”? I don’t think so.
Mrs Palin’s supporters like her because “she’s just like me”? Does that qualify her to be president? Uh, I don’t think so. Would these same supporters pick out a surgeon because he’s “just like me”? I think – and hope – they’d seek out the best educated surgeon.
I would like a president – and other elected officials – to be smart. And to be introspective. And to know how to think. And to know how to handle themselves both at home and abroad. I really don’t want another president who thinks it’s okay to give Angela Merkel an unwanted backrub, or yell across the conference table, “Yo, Blair” at Tony Blair. I’d like leaders who don’t lie us into an unbelievably costly “war of choice” in Iraq while ignoring OBL at Tora Bora.
Gee, is that too much to ask? We’ve had eight years of incompetent, mean-spirited leadership under Bush/Cheney and we were doomed if it continued under McCain/Cheney. It’s downright scary to think of Mrs Palin as being one (decrepit) heartbeat away from presidential leadership.
November 29th, 2009 | 1:21 pm | #57
Ooops, should have “previewed”. I should have written about our country being doomed if Bush/Cheney had continued under MCCAIN/PALIN.
November 29th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #58
Thanks, FormerRep in SC, for the encouragement. I just spent time reading the newest post on Bree Palin (Palin drinking her own Kool-Aid). If you truly want to get a sense of the types of people who support Sarah – the core of her base, then please watch the 47 second video clip and read the remarks that follow. The remarks are from the site of C4P (Conservatives for Palin).
This is one of the aspects about Sarah that continues to dumbfound me – this bizarre loyalty and adoration her followers manifest. It is so unbecoming – but Sarah eats it up – always has.
Here are a couple things you should know about Sarah: 90% of her appeal is her appearance. I know of virtually no one who would deny that she is, at 45, a very beautiful woman. No one knows this about her appeal more than Sarah – that is why she spends an inordinate amount of time getting her hair done, her pedicures, her manicures, and her constant shopping (even though she coyly complains that she doesn’t like to shop. — but lucky for her, the gov’s office in Anchorage is just two blocks away from Nordstrom’s – and you could ask any employee there how often the gov would show up. Answer – all the time)
Maybe it sounds petty to bring this point up – but if you want to understand the base of her appeal, one must at least acknowledge this primary fact.
I almost pity you, John Mark Reynolds, in the same way I pity Steve Schmidt or Rick Davis (McCain’s campaign chaps) or Randy Reudrich (AK Repub Party chairman who served with Sarah on the Oil and Gas Commission and who she “outed” for his unethical behavior on that board) and Dan Fagin (Alaska’s number one talk radio host – a social and fiscal conservative who at one time was a close friend of Sarah’s but who now ranks among the many, many in Alaska who have awakened (most woke up in July of 2008 when we watched her fire the highly respected Walt Monegan, the man in charge of the State’s public safety, because he refused to succumb to the constant pressure applied to him by Todd and Sarah’s right hand man, Frank Bailey, to fire Mike Wooten – Molly’s ex-husband – Molly is Sarah’s younger sister).
Sorry – I know these are run-on thoughts. I just have such little time and am so glad to find an island of rational, thinking, God-fearing Americans who can see through the farce and lies of Sarah – and who graciously but DUTIFULLY call it for what it is.
“In Ohio” – your point “b” above made me want to cry – because it is so reassuring to know that at least a few down in the Lower ‘48 (AK talk for the continental US) see her for what she is.
To carry through with the above thought, the reason I almost feel sorry for you, John Mark, is because you have written such a well thought out, reasoned, fair, honest, lovely reaction to Sarah’s book – but she and her book are both so wholly unworthy of your time, attention and efforts.
Sarah is not a thinker. She is not a reflective thinker in any sort of way. At all. This is not to say that she isn’t smart. She has a kind of street smart that allows her to assimilate short, sound-byte phrases and memorize them with relative ease. She is quite adroit at restating and reconfiguring the same basic twenty or so talking points ad naseum.
To those not paying much attention, apparently this passes as having mastered knowledge in a certain area. But those of us who know Sarah and have watched her over the years know this is only ever the most cursory level of – not even really knowledge. It’s simply just a constant re-packaging of words.
Anyway – I have to leave again. Not sure when I’ll be able to come back and weigh in. But a couple points that really should be set straight.
John Mark, you make a point to speak of Sarah cleaning up the corruption in Alaska.
Not true.
It was the FBI who came and for months had been in full investigation mode and who made the arrests. Sarah simply loves to claim credit for anything she thinks will sound good to the unthinking masses. And cleaning up a culture of corruption sounds great.
Second – and I’ve never shared this b/c I desperately don’t want my name known. (Sarah is staggeringly vindictive and her base followers would do ANYTHING to avenge her. Trust me. Go read the posts Bree Palin has for a simple fyi. Blessedly at this point, Sarah’s name is pretty much toast in Alaska. Alaskans weren’t stupid enough to buy her ridiculous excuses about State govt. coming to a standstill b/c of ethics violations being leveled against her as her reason for resignation. Most of those were excused out of hand. And there were only about a total of 25. Sarah wanted to quit, make her millions and go on a book/campaign tour). Period.
Now she has the lovely little mulit-million dollar family complex being built – complete with a massive hangar for Todd – right on the shore of Lake Lucille – where they live, a huge office for Sarah, an apartment for Bristol and Tripp, an apartment for Track – and who knows what else. No need for any of you to feel the slightest bit sorry for the fortunes of Ms. Palin – she’s doing quite nicely with the adulation of the uneducated masses in the Bible Belt and the millions in her bank account.
That’s why In Ohio’s pt B makes me want to weep. At least one other American and one other Christian (besides the thousands of us in Alaska) get it.
It’s not right.
Sarah is the single most self absorbed, self-centered, divisive individual I have ever known.
I could write page after page after page of the incredible tale that is Sarah Palin; frankly it could be a book. But what unnerves me the most is that evangelical Americans, by and large, don’t get it.
They don’t understand that she is a compulsive liar. They don’t get that she demands (well, I’ve long said “adoration” – but on the air two weeks ago, Dan Fagin just simply called it what it really is – worship. Sarah demands worship. She is not to be questioned – not her message or her motives. She is to be worshipped. Period. If one does not worship her – then she and her small but bizarrely devoted band of followers label them haters (for men) or jealous (if one is a woman). They don’t get that she is manipulative and stunningly vindictive.
Nope. Far too many evangelicals think Sarah is the great hope – not just of the nation, but of the Kingdom. Having Franklin Graham orchestrate a dinner party where he placed his beloved father next to this charlatan was enough to make those of us who know the truth want to weep indeed.
Whoa to the nation who loves to love false gods. Whoa to religious leaders across our fruited plains who would advocate an individual who has been proven over and over and over as one who lies without conscience (long before the book ever came out, but now esp. since it is out and is brimming with deceit).
Sarah, at the end of the day, is not most interesting for who she is; Sarah, at the end of the day, is most interesting for what the “Palin phenomenon” tells us about who we are.
We, as evangelicals, have much to hang our heads for in shame – but not in silence – on the matter of Sarah Palin.
November 29th, 2009 | 2:22 pm | #59
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2863 Easy to find
November 29th, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #60
I have reviewed your “review” and find it
lacking in substance.
You are an “asshat”! One of many who comment on Palin in order to further your own
notoriety.
November 29th, 2009 | 2:48 pm | #61
the link was rather easy to find, what happened, genius??? http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2863 here’s another quote by Plato you may like…”False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2876
November 29th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #62
This is a terrific review, and closely matches my own observations. Palin should have picked a truly brilliant conservative to work with on this. I suspect her policy book (that I assume she is now working on) will be better. Let’s hope.
I don’t understand the idea that Romney would be a better leader. His record as governor… what he did to his state, is imply inferior to Palin’s record as governor. Palin made her state better. She really seems to understand that government is the problem. Romney is quite smart, but he’s not really earnestly principled. He shifted his views to match what benefits his political future, and this is something Palin just doesn’t seem to do, for better or worse.
The scrutiny that this review gives Palin is nearly harsh, but it’s completely justified… we all know she dreams of being president, and that demands scrutiny. I found this fair. But Romney’s confused and somewhat failed political philosophy, under the same standard, makes him simply a ridiculous candidate.
The only reason I like Romney is because that nutcase Huckabee was so terrible to him. I would vote for Romney only against Mccains, Huckabees, Clintons, or Obamas. Against Palin, or really any earnest conservative (even those who don’t have grand plans for conservatism and simply an intent to stop the mad crooks), is simply a better bet.
Hell, a do-nothing-but-stop-stupid-programs president is tailor made for today. Let’s hope that someone better than Palin somehow shows up. I really want Palin’s principles matched with experience and the leadership ability to have that coalition of advisors and loyal geniuses that you describe.
But I don’t think that’s realistic. Romney is Palin’s most pressing threat, and I really don’t think that makes any sense. He’s not honest about his views, or his principles have changed so wildly that he’s some kind of weirdo.
November 29th, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #63
This is my favorite quote in the comments for this post so far:
This person may be “Afraid to us my name”, but is that anecdote doesn’t specifically describe someone whom Mrs. Palin and her staff are sure to know, I have no idea what would.
As to the rest, JMR, I wonder if you knew that the crazytalk would come of this post? It’s fun to read for a little while, but too much of a good thing …
November 29th, 2009 | 3:02 pm | #64
I do agree that it wouldn’t have been that hard to verify that the quotes were legit.
Palin’s obviously a well read and intelligent woman, but not the kind of person who flaunts her academics or really puts a lot of faith in that. And I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. I DO NOT WANT A PHILOSOPHER KING. I do want someone who is incompatible, at least to some extent, with those people… those people who destroyed our country.
I know, that’s so sad and bad and whatever. I don’t really care. We’re past the breaking point, and whatever America can be salvaged is going to be broken for generations financially. We need to stop these brilliant solutions to every problem. We need government that really doesn’t know, or want to know, or pretend it could ever know, how to make life perfect. Stay out of it, get off the people’s back, and let the philosopher kings invent cool stuff and run businesses instead of rule us.
In a great America, leaders like Palin are attracted to public service, and the brilliant geniuses are stuck in schools or get rich in private life. I don’t want halos or gift plates… just a leader. Someone with that unintellectual sense of honor… someone who might even quit and look stupid if that meant her state would be better off. A mom or dad who takes the important things seriously.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:04 pm | #65
Mr Turk – what you don’t understand (and what Americans don’t get about Alaska) is that at this point in the campaign – early in the primary – Sarah had no staff. She rightly complained to Loren Lehman – who would go on to win as Lt. Gov – that she felt it was just her, a girlfriend and Todd running her Lt. Gov campaign.
And indeed, that’s pretty much all it was. But this is Alaska and that’s all that’s needed in most primary races.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #66
I read Palin’s book, whoever this guy is, it is he who projects himself on Pailn. An evangelical for Romney? Incidently where is the evidence of Romney’s intellect? Romneycare? flip flops on gay marriage and abortion? Romney was not just a moral moderate but Romneycare makes him an economic moderate too,
November 29th, 2009 | 3:16 pm | #67
You said early on: I am concerned about her polarizing nature, her dark mood toward critics, and imprecision.
That is a perfect description of President Obama.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #68
Sir: Re. Quotes and their provenance….
Who said “Am I my brother’s keeper?”. Did he mean it as a prescription for a beautiful fraternal world or as sarcastic rhetoric?
Who said “How goodly are thy tents, O Israel!” Did he mean it as a blessing or a curse?
Was it a good or an evil man who said “He who steals my purse steals garbage, but he who steals my good name takes what benefits him not and leaves me the poorer.”
We do not always read the entire book we quote from; we do not always get the quote 100% accurate; we do not always understand the intention of the quote in its original context; and we cannot always find the source of a quote that has stuck in our heads.
I will give three further examples of quotes I once read, which stuck, but which, for the life of me I simply can’t provenance though they are still ever so germane to my life that I use them as North Stars….
One for the money: “He who is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still…”
Two for the show: “We had rather, in the ways of Good, follow our enemies than in the paths of Evil walk with our friends…”
Three to get ready: “A writer has no obligation to be truthful, just plausible…”
Now: Go cat Go! Tell me if I’ve got them all right, all wrong, AND WHETHER THEY MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL!
BTW, the “ZOHAR”, the root text of the Kabbalah, the entire basis for Jewish Mysticism, was written in C13th Spain, yet was ascribed to a Rabbi in the C2nd. Is that plagiarism, pseudopigraphia, or just old-fashioned cheating?
Finally, here’s a quote which you would do well to heed: “In order to criticize competently one MUST like the subject matter!”
Would you believe that that was Ezra Pound in his theatre-critic incarnation? Would you agree?
A word to the wise: Time and again you have dissed the Song because of the Singer. Bad move! By fisking this book in this way, which you have probably never done before, and will probably never do again, you have become just one more of these media vultures, an Andrew Sullivan clone, who, disappointed that Sarah is not the virgin you hoped for, must make her out to be a whore, worthy of your pittance if she just lie back helpless and think of the favour you’re doing her! In exposing her in this way you have become–Lord Help You–LEVI JOHNSTON, Mark Two!
November 29th, 2009 | 3:36 pm | #69
I curious why the omission of the amniotic fluid leak in Texas doesn’t bother this reviewer. Although Palin confessed in an audio recording that she disregarded it and boarded a plane, her book tries to make her actions sound must less risky than they actually were.
Endangering a special needs unborn infant is less interesting to the reviewer than the mis-quotes of Plato. It’s almost as if the reviewer is hoping to distract readers from the real issues.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #70
I love how the dissenters just do not understand politics, and life in Alaska. To the person, “afraid to us my name” your disertation on Palin is typical 48 speak. Most Alaskans approved of removing the public safety officer and other officials who had homesteaded way too long in public service. She took a big chink off of the armor of public servants who were not doing there job. To cloak your self in your supposed evangelical faith and say otherwise is akin to a dog licking his own vomit. If you dont believe me, it is right there in the good book.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #71
[...] [...]
November 29th, 2009 | 3:39 pm | #72
My Name,
Are you implying that Sarah Palin didn’t give birth to Trigg Palin?
Because that’s much, much more unhinged than even birther hysterics.
And irrelevant. A lot of people make mistakes. Palin wanted to be with her specific doctor, and this really isn’t any of your business. It’s not like Obama’s coke habit or whether he smokes. It’s just not relevant to Palin’s ability to do a job.
If you really want to help Palin win elections, keep up the nasty attacks. That you are demanding someone else write about a specific (and insane ) topic says that you’re a freaking jerk, a nut, and a moron. Write your own blog and dedicate it to Sarah’s uterus… the rest of us do not care about that at all.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #73
I do not see why people are so mad about this review.
Sarah Palin fans: she isn’t pretending to be perfect. That barely even matters. She’s honest, will clean up government, and really doesn’t have any solve-all-our problems genius to her aura. She’s interested in stopping the corruption and bloat, not being our savior.
She gave up power to someone she thought was in a better situation to govern Alaska. She was right. She probably would do the same if someone better situated and just as trustworthy came along for 2012 (not that we should even focus on that rightnow). She simply is not an object for worship.
She’s been attacked unfairly, but not here. This is the good kind of scrutiny! I know Obama’s so scary to our nation’s financial and sovereign future that it’s tempting to simply go all in for a credible and honest person who apparently can withstand the hate. But let’s just admit it: Palin’s not perfect, she’s not a savant, and she’s doesn’t need to be.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:46 pm | #74
Dustin@#63, you wrote the following:
“I know, that’s so sad and bad and whatever. I don’t really care. We’re past the breaking point, and whatever America can be salvaged is going to be broken for generations financially.”
You are, of course, speaking of the wild, out-of-control spending that took place during the Bush/Cheney administration, aren’t you? You know, the administration that turned a budget surplus they received upon taking office in January, 2001, into a raging budget deficit in the trillions they turned over to the Obama/Biden administration in January, 2009.
The wild spending on a completely insane war-of-choice in Iraq, while, at the same time, putting through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans – Mr Bush’s base of the “have’s and the have-more’s”. Where was your rage at the financial shenanigans for the eight years of Bush/Cheney? Were you writing letters to the editor protesting the spending sprees? Marching in the streets?
OR, are you trying to imply that ALL the financial mismanagement that our grandchildren will be saddled with began – suddenly – on January 20, 2009?
November 29th, 2009 | 3:47 pm | #75
Afraid to you my name – Thank you for your insight.
From the moment she stepped on the stage at the RNC, I felt the woman was a fake. The speech that everyone seemed to adore was filled with hatred. I have never seen a person who claimed to be a Christian that was filled with as much hatred as Sarah Palin. Men seem more interested in looking up her skirt than looking up her record. I can’t believe the loyal followers of Palin who fail to see her shallowness.
Great review of her book. Wasn’t going to buy it and from reading about 10 pages that were posted online, I don’t want to waste my time. Thanks.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:53 pm | #76
Mr. Reynolds is an intellectual snob who thinks he is fair minded. Hardly.
Sarah Palin is a natural-born leader and, most important, a natural-born executive. As president, she would not take three months to decide to send more troops to Afghanistan. Executives know that important decisions don’t always have the luxury of a Socratic dialogue that extends indefinitely. The dilettante-in-chief currently in the White House has a corner on that.
Mr. Reynolds fusses over the book in such a school-marmy fashion that he quickly loses the forest for the trees. His credibility eviscerates itself.
“The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men.”
–Nietzsche
November 29th, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #77
In this review you are comparing Palin against an ideal, and she comes up very short of what your ideal would be. However, in the real world all that is necessary is for her to be better than the alternative, and that is the reason that Sarah Palin has a chance to become president. Despite being flawed in many ways, she may be less flawed than Obama. Elections are not about electing perfect candidates (though a lot of Obama fans seemed to think that he represented one) but of choosing the lesser of evils. If political corruption and runaway spending are the two issues that dominate in 2012, Palin might be an attractive choice.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:58 pm | #78
You are kiddin’ right?
Palin is the antithesis of Jefferson’s natural aristoi, absolutely bereft of an iota of talent or virtue. We live in a democratic meritocracy, and we elect a populist version of a philosopher king…..Thom Jefferson would have been appalled at Palin…and recognized her for the flaming demogogue she is.
She quit as governor because people like Dr. K and Jonah Goldberg were publically telling her to go back to Alaska and govern well and read some books, and other people were telling her the same thing behind the scenes.
Did you even watch the video of her ragged incoherent speech? Did you mark the resentful body language? Sheesh.
And the future of the party?
She is a glossy candy shell full of electoral poison for the demographics the GOP needs to attract– the college-educated, youth, and minorities.
WEC (white evangelical christian) is 20% of the electorate, and 99% of the shrunken GOP base.
And the demographic timer goes tick…tick….tick.
November 29th, 2009 | 3:58 pm | #79
The Plato citation from the quotation page is in error. The quote does not appear in Plato. You will notice that the page cited does not include a specific reference.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #80
phoebes,
YES, I am talking about the spending during Bush’s administration, and the dramatically worse spending of Obama.
We need a leader who is willing to take on both problems.
Do you have some reason why this wouldn’t be something Palin would do?
Republicans complained loudly about Bush’s spending. I admit, Obama added more to the deficit than all other US Presidents combined, and really, Bush’s spending is negligible in comparison, but Bush’s spending (really congress’s spending when Bush was president, the worst of it when the democrats ran congress from 2006 -2008) was also totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Republicans.
You already know this, I guess, and were making some asinine point about how the democrats aren’t as bad because Bush did something vaguely similar (though obviously not as bad).
November 29th, 2009 | 4:03 pm | #81
Dustin, I’m curious as to why there seems to be a dichotomy in what you describe. Can’t leaders be intellectual and honorable and maybe or maybe not parents? Is there something about not being an intellectual that you believe gives a person an edge in acting honorably? That never has been my experience in the working world. I’ve worked with wonderful people of enormous character who acted as great stewards and protectors of organizations in very difficult situations but who also happened to be very smart and well educated. Brilliance is not necessarily a disqualifier in acting as a good steward. The more important skill is the ability to bring together a competent management team (as Reagan did but George W. Bush did not) and setting the right tone at the top.
Also, what lies behind your thinking that a mom or dad would have an edge in taking things seriously? Being President means working with Congressional leaders on domestic policy initiatives. That involves a lot of horse trading and deal making and, often, compromising. Rarely are things accomplished just through the issuance of Executive Orders, there’s a lot in the mix, a lot that goes on behind the scenes. Leadership also requires explaining difficult choices (such as troop surges) to the public. Or making decisions, as JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (which seemed to bring the U.S. to the brink of nuclear war), on whether to authorize air strikes on Cuba or simply go with a naval blockade. You’re sitting in a room with the top military and national security advisors and you’re the one who makes the call.
I don’t see how being a mom or dad is a factor in such matters, which require the ability to properly assess data provided by experts. And choosing between options which sometimes range from bad to terrible (bailing out banks or letting the financial system collapse). And living with the consequences, that is, manning up. Surely you would not exclude from considering as a leader a childless man or woman? Again, I’ve known some great managers and executives who did not happen to have children although some, I think, wish they could have. (Being a parent is not a gift God grants everyone.) Perhaps we’ve just had different work experiences but I sure don’t draw bright line distinctions between intellectuals and non-intellectuals in the ability to act honorably and to do the right thing.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:05 pm | #82
Geez, what a tedious review.
I do applaud you for admitting you are a Mitt Romney supporter up front. That puts this in perspective, and of course, we appreciate the honesty.
Funny thing, I read, and reviewed the book with a lot more joy, and a lot less words.
I found Going Rogue to be EXACTLY what Rush Limbaugh described it to be, a substantive book on policy. You just have to be able to understand what you are reading.
Look, I discovered Sarah Palin not long after she was elected Governor, and have followed her closely ever since. To say as you continually do, that she hasn’t grown is ludicrous.
In fact, most of your assertions about her are off base.
If Sarah made one mistake during her run with McCain, it was being a bit naive and trusting of the idiots that were running his campaign. They are the worst in human history!
It seems like other than Nicole Wallace, Sarah’s VP team was decent and hard working, but the “higher ups” were worthless.
Anyhow, it’s like we read two different books. I found Going Rogue to be delightful, inspiring, and insightful. It reinforced what I already knew about Sarah Palin.
This book tells you exactly what kind of President she would be. She would be a strong leader who, as you say, wouldn’t suffer fools well. She would certainly clean house in D.C. She would fight with every ounce of strength she had to stop the insanity, and to bring us back to a constitutional government.
She lays out her strategery on every subject that we care about. You just have to read the book! It’s all there.
Here’s the thing about Sarah, and you sort of touched on this. Sarah doesn’t really care about titles and holding office. She has proven that she can cause great change as a private citizen.
Sarah doesn’t lust after office, any office. Never has. Being a city councilwoman was simply a means to an end, and the same thing goes for being mayor.
You could even say that about her being elected Governor. Sarah had already started the ball rolling, and was going after the “Corrupt Bastards Club” in Murkowski’s administration, but in the end, she had to run for Governor to achieve her goal.
You can pretty much see her time as President of the United States as the same thing.
She will be very active in 2010 helping elect like minded Conservatives. But in the end, that won’t be enough to really get the job done of restoring the Republic and driving the radical democrat/communists from D.C.
Nope, in order to really stop the evil, Sarah will find she will need to be President. And so she shall.
The fact that Sarah doesn’t covet power, or the presidency is exactly why she is the best person for the job.
In fact, it’s refreshing that she is a bit reluctant. But just as the draft Sarah for VP was strong, the draft Sarah for President will be overwhelming.
Sarah Palin is the only figure out there that actually has the ideas and by far the only one who excites Americans.
Sarah excites our base, but she also does well with independents, and even sane democrats. In fact, some of her most vocal support comes from pissed off democrats! This is a rapidly expanding demographic, BTW!
Sarah will be able to do what Reagan did. Those old “Reagan democrats” are now Palin democrats, and a whole new generation of dems will follow them.
Sarah will win, and win big.
BTW, if you’d like to read my review of the book:
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/going-rogue-an-american-life-is-an-american-treasure/
November 29th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #83
Great retrospective -thanks, now I don’t need to read it. I appreciate your honest appraisal from both a literary and conservative point of view. It’s an honest reaction from your gut. Too bad some people have such a solid point of view, either loving or hating her, that they can’t just read this and entertain the notions you bring forth.
I did a search on Aristotle, and found this gem (which she may have missed in choosing her ancients to quote: “Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.” Aristotle.)
Thank you for taking the time and seriously focusing on this.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #84
Mr. Deleon,
I am sorry you feel this way. Maybe I am a snob, I hope not. I believe Palin is a natural-born leader and executive. I defended her during the campaign on exactly those grounds, but I don’t think being “natural born” is enough. There is a thresh hold of knowledge that a competent leader must pass at the level of the presidency. Palin’s book did not demonstrate that level of competence to me.
Maybe I am asking too much, but let me ask you Mr. Delon: “If you had received the criticisms Palin has received, would you have advised her to put together a hasty and little edited book?” Was this in her best interest?
It was a fine book if money and sales were the main goals, but not if showing the Governor in the best light was the object. The last chapter is an excellent example. It starts brilliantly, but then degenerates into boiler plate.
The book is just not very good for her future . . . because it does nothing to address legitimate worries raised amongst her friends during the campaign.
I worry that I did read the book too closely for what it was . . . and that is a criticism I receive. I took a not-serious book seriously, but I took Palin seriously so assumed her book would be serious. My mistake.
This is, however, the first time I have been called “school-marmy” and I think it probably fits the kind of overreaction I too often have to certain kinds of errors. Thanks for the reminder to chillax.
I think the forest, however, needs some trees to be a forest and there were not enough individual idea trees to make a forest of thought. So to speak . . .
John Mark
November 29th, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #85
In fact, this is why Palin has such ferocious loyalty from many Republicans.
They did complain, over and over, about Bush’s spending. I know democrat idiots like to pretend they didn’t, but it was a constant drumbeat of letters to the editor, blog posts, and simple frustration.
Palin actually stopped corrupt republicans, AND will fight corrupt democrats? WOW, that’s more than enough for most Republicans to overlook that she didn’t go to Yale and has a normal class family.
This is the entire POINT. Palin is an expression of frustration with the republican party’s ridiculous behavior, and an attempt to reverse the Obama spending levels from 2006 onward.
but if we can last 10 years at Obama spending levels, we could last 100 at Bush + GOP congress spending levels. Just because two things are both wrong doesn’t mean both are equally wrong. I would rather have a wife that bought too much jewelry from Target than one who bought too much at Tiffany’s.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:09 pm | #86
Gary,
I could easily have been convinced by Palin’s book to switch my allegiance. You can google my web site (johnmarkreynolds.com) to see I defended her fiercely against critics during the election.
I just thought the book did not help her. If you found details in it, I must have missed something.
John Mark
November 29th, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #87
Sadly, the “quote page” is in error. You will notice it contains no citation to a specific text. You can verify this by searching Plato at the Perseus Project. Not everything on the Internet is true!
November 29th, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #88
Madison,
Sadly, the “quote” page is in error. You will notice it contains no specific reference to a Platonic text. You can search for it in the canon at Perseus Project, but will not find it. Because I wanted to give Palin the benefit of the doubt, I even backwards translated it and looked for common nouns.
The quote is bunk . . . as a further google search would show you.
John Mark
November 29th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #89
She doesn’t have any original thoughts, she plagiarizes.
—————————–
“Going Rogue,” Page 118: “(Todd’s grandma) Lena grew up in Dillingham on Bristol Bay. Her story sounds like something out of a Herman Melville novel. Her father, ‘Glass Eye’ Billy Bartman, was a Dutchman, a sled-dog freighter, and caretaker of the Alaska Packers saltry, a salmon cannery on the Igushik River. Her mother was a full-blooded Yupik Eskimo who grew up in a barabara…”
TRUE BUT EERILY SIMILAR to the phrasing in a story written by Anchorage Daily News reporter Tom Kizzia in October 2008. “Her father was a Dutchman, Glass Eye Billy Bartman, a sled dog freighter in the Bristol Bay region and caretaker of the Alaska Packers saltry on the Igushik River,” Kizzia wrote. “Her mother was full-blooded Yup’ik, growing up in a sod-roofed barabara in the now-abandoned village of Tuklung…” Kizzia also reported that Lena returned to Dillingham from her home in Homer “to help campaign in 2006, speaking with Yup’ik elders who didn’t follow politics. Kizzia wrote: “I said, ‘You know Todd?’ All the Natives know Todd. I said, ‘His wife is running for Boss Alaska.’” “Going Rogue” notes: “Lena went around Dillingham talking with the Yupik elders. ‘Do you know my grandson Todd?’ she would ask. Everyone in Dillingham knew Todd. ‘His wife is running for Boss Alaska.”
http://alaskadispatch.com/news/politics/3059-palin-hunting-devils-in-the-details?showall=1
November 29th, 2009 | 4:25 pm | #90
“I greatly admire the actions of this mother of Trig, a child in God’s image.”
Every action Palin took to ensure the health and safety of her unborn infant is too be admired for sure.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #91
Afraid to use your name, you should be. You are so the opportunist, how many sites have you spewed your thoughtful venom? Why are you so caught up in the Palin drama? You say she is all these awful things but you are right in the middle of it all, why? If she is what you say why even bother?? From what you stated her future will be short lived now wouldn’t it, she’s just a lying hack, why aren’t people just moving on?? I have never seen so much ugliness come out of so many people about someone that is supposed to be so irrelevant, and just for that if Sarah does run she sure has my vote.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #92
It’s looking like Palin or her co-author (still Palin’s responsibility) got the Plato quote wrong.
They relied on university websites, and that was a mistake, but it’s apparently a widespread mistake.
But indeed Palin is apparently not extremely familiar with Plato. I like her quote though… it makes a great point.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #93
I am very grateful to have found your blog post on this topic.
i am one of the people whom do not exist, according to Palin and her followers. I am a liberal Christian woman who does not live in “pro-America”. I am an independent voter.
I have been called every swear word in the book by Palin’s fans, just because I have found her ethically challenged. It is an empirical fact (if you read up on her budgets and follow her press through the years) that she lies as often as she speaks.
To be dehumanized by her and her followers because I don’t agree with them is truly frightening. I can tell you that I had lost my faith in any kind of organized religion, due to Palin’s vindictive lies on the campaign trail and her followers chants of “terrorist! kill him!”.
That’s not the kind of Christianity I’m familiar with. Is there a place in the church for those of us who believe it’s wrong to bear false witness? Who hold truth and honor to be worth something?
The anger of Palin’s fans is something she deliberately stokes up and uses as a whip against her detractors.
I was taught what that represents in the bible, but I’ll not disgrace this blog by repeating it.
Thank you for reminding me that there are thinking Christians.
Your critical thinking skills are impressive; though I think you are not as familiar with Palin’s record as you could be. Were you to follow it closely, you would recognize many of her “achievements” as parsing of the truth or downright lies.
It’s so refreshing to read a Christian who does not try to justify lying.
As much as Palin does not think I’m an American, I can assure you, I am. And should she want to be a leader, she would have to lead all of us – not just the people who agree with her. Based on the way she ran Alaska, those who don’t agree with her would be thrown under the bus, lose their jobs, and have their reputations cruelly sullied and destroyed.
Thank you.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #94
John, you perfectly describe in your words why a heavy filter should be applied when reviewing someone’s book review.
The dripping condescension exhibited in your critique, accompanied by the venomous comments made thereafter, reads like a predisposition awaiting an outlet.
The book was not intended to present a wonky (read Romney) political manifesto. No, the book, as Governor Palin stated from the onset, was written in order to reintroduce–in her own words–who she is (as opposed to the media and Democrat narratives).
As for her political philosophy, Palin has been very explicit about that: small government, balanced budgets, strong defense, etc.)
November 29th, 2009 | 4:39 pm | #95
Dustin@85 – let me ask you something. If you were asked to vote for Sarah Palin in 2012 for president, could you vote, with complete confidence, for her, knowing that she quit her governor’s office after 1/2 term? Would you use your one precious vote for president to vote for someone likely to quit, as she did most of her other elected offices?
Oh, she quit her office because she felt someone else could do a better job. And because of ethics charges she had pending against her. She felt she could “progress change” without an office title.
If you read Mrs Palin’s book – or even excerpts from it – you can see that she blames everyone else for the slings she has received in her public life. “The evil press and Democrats ‘vetted’ her after Sen McCain announced her as his running-mate.” Well, of course, they DID. Someone HAD to vet her because the Republicans and the McCain campaign certainly didn’t!
Oh, and Nicolle Wallace was so “mean to her”. Wouldn’t let “Sarah be Sarah”. Oh, and Ms Wallace set up her interview with Katie Curic, who asked all those “gottcha” questions. Dustin, if Mrs Palin couldn’t answer Katie Curic’s questions, how would she deal with the Russians and Iranians and all the other “meanies” in the world and all the “gottcha” problems she would have to face every day as president??
Well, Dustin, she couldn’t deal with the Russians or the Iranians or anyone else. In fairness, I will add that I couldn’t do it, either, but I’m not stupid enough to think I could. And by accepting a place on the McCain ticket, she clearly said she COULD accept the responsibility.
And as for your point about Republican overspending us from surplus to deficit in eight short years, unless the Republican base was writing to the Washington Times, I never saw one letter-to-the-editor bemoaning Republican waste.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:43 pm | #96
Just an American@93 – I liked your take on Sarah Palin and her Christianity. I am not a Christian but my view of Christianity is a lot like yours.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:46 pm | #97
Thanks for your review. After reading her book and having done lots of research on her (much of it long before McCain chose her for VP), I think that Sarah Palin does have the intellectual capacity, and the discipline to achieve higher office. I don’t know whether she will or not, but in my opinion, what she needs is guidance. She didn’t have any of that before last year, and I almost feel that she is too wounded right now to reach out and trust people who might be able to help her. She’ll get over that, and hopefully, the right people will be there at the right time. She has never had the opportunity to acquire that group of loyal friends, advisers and mentors that she needs.
The “To avoid criticism…” that was attributed to Clarence Thomas was done so by mistake, probably by the ghost writer. Clarence Thomas used it in a speech once, saying that HE had a little sign with that quote on it on HIS desk. My guess is that the GW took her Sarah’s anecdote and screwed up the attribution.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Htx6wLCYgGgJ:www.aei.org/speech/15211+To+avoid+criticism,+say+nothing,+do+nothing,+be+nothing.+clarence+thomas&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The “Be kind….” quote was used in the “Foundation for a Course in Miracles” and was attributed to either Plato or Philo, who often wrote of Plato and of the Jews and Christianity. I would imagine that Sarah has read and used “Miracles” and does know what Plato or Philo were speaking about.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:f1tBw-66eYYJ:www.facim.org/acim/lh061703.htm+%E2%80%98Be+kind+for+everyone+you+meet+is+fighting+a+hard+battle&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
November 29th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #98
Jeez.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will take the time to scour Palin’s book for God knows what… yet there isn’t a single curious person when it comes to the background of the guy who actually was elected president.
Why?
November 29th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #99
you know, I read this commentary and then I thought….
well, what politician now in the public eye would fare any better than Palin using this guy’s criteria or analysis?
I would like him to list a few names of politicians that OVERALL rate better than her…
if not, then this whole commentary doesn’t add one thing to the noise except it is one person out of possibly a million or more who also are reading or will read the book…
November 29th, 2009 | 4:51 pm | #100
phoebes,
you’re not very credible in your claims. Palin stared down Exxon twice, very effectively, her own party’s king makers, and got that natural gas line. She was a great governor, but like I said, I do not ask for some point of worship.
You said I claimed that deficit problems began on January 21, 2009. You were lying. Why are you lying about me? What about me threatens you so much? You don’t even know me, you crazy kook.
When you talk about Palin being bad at foreign relations, again, you have to compare her success against Obama’s failure. If you aren’t aware that Obama is a failure in this department, then again, you simply lack basic credibility with most folks.
I hope someone better comes along than Palin, and I hope someone better than that comes along, and again and again. Until that happens, I will happily support all honest candidates like Palin, against people like you who think politics are all about defending one party by libeling the other. It’s pathetic, and I don’t care.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:57 pm | #101
I enjoyed the book but would rate it only about a C+. Great literature it wasn’t, but imo Sarah is fleshed out as an intelligent, competent leader that has a work ethic that puts most Americans to shame. She appears to be good at team building, communicating with the voters, and getting things done in spite of politics. So the book did a good job at describing who Sarah Palin is.
I agree with you that where the book is weak is “What does Sarah Palin think and why”? I’m hoping that this was being saved for another book, one more along the lines of Goldwater or even Obama.
I too didn’t read the book as Sarah getting even, but as Sarah providing the facts as she saw them. She was very tough on a few people, BUT SHE DID IT OUT IN THE OPEN – not as an unnamed source.
Much of the policy detail you were looking for has appeared on Palin’s facebook page, in editorials she has written, and in her Hong Kong speech. It would have been nice to have included them as an addendum in the book.
One additional comment. I don’t think it is accurate to look at the book as a standalone statement about Palin. What about the huge number of people lining up for hours and Palin showing up early and staying late to make sure everyone’s books are signed? What about the total connection Palin makes with these people? What about all the interviews she has done – some very policy oriented – while making very, very few mistakes or misspeaks?
November 29th, 2009 | 4:59 pm | #102
just an american, please spare us your victim whine.
you have nothing but conclusory comments about Palin’s ethics. She suffered through 15 ethics lawsuits, had her private email broken into by democrats, and her garbage sifted through for over a year by nuts.
After all this, what ethics problems have you found? Nothing. Not a darn thing.
Palin’s been called worse than you. You claim Palin says you don’t exist, but I dare say you didn’t read her book. She talk about you.
Palin’s not very conservative in they ways you think she is. She’s reasonable, and understand government is the problem, and is ethical to a fault, but I don’t think people wanting a crusader for any government action, beyond stopping crimes, will be too happy with Palin.
just relax, read her book, and change your mind. If you are at all susceptible to the stupid ‘poor me’ bull you spout, you will fall in love with Palin because of all the dumb things people have done to her.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:59 pm | #103
I will remove this site from my bookmarks.
It is not that we Alaskans(about 80%) mind a decent review, or do we mind the opinion of the left(we understand they have PDS) but I have seen too many supposed Christian’s who have no discernment, write some of the most offensive crap about a good person.
I will not allow your site to taint my ideals.
We have followed Sarah for years and do not find in her the guile I find in this site for publishing this hit piece.
May your site flounder and your words fall to the ground that no one will be deceived.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #104
“I greatly admire the actions of this mother of Trig, a child in God’s image.”
————————————
Sarah Palin did not give birth to this child. As a matter of fact, she was never pregnant with this child. She faked her pregnancy so that she could get the following that she now has as stated in the above statement. I know this as a FACT.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:08 pm | #105
I like the fact that you intellectually honest enough to partake in this exercise in the first place. I believe I will do the same over at my own blog.
My default position is to love and defend Sarah Palin, but I don’t want to be the right-of-center version of an Obama lemming either.
That said, even a Palin with a respectably solid administration behind her would be far better than what we have now.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:09 pm | #106
Dustin,
I have actually read her book.
You are misinformed. The pipeline is not in existence. We paid 500 million for the opportunity of negotiating the possibility of building it. Due to many conflicting interests, it may never be built.
I am sorry you find my post to be a “whine”, etc. Comments like yours are a milder version of what I was referring to.
I was taught to attract people to my faith by my actions. Your post and many of Palin’s followers (who all seem to share this contempt for others) does not attract me to you or to Palin.
I know a lot more about Palin than you do. I know this from how misinformed you are about the issues.
You have repeated the talking points that the ethics charges were all dismissed. This is not truthful or accurate.
Clearly you are not interested in the truth and that is what is discouraging.
We should not worship another human. You could support Palin based on the facts, but instead you are twisting the facts to accommodate your version of her.
I understand your desire to see her as she presents herself. If she were what she appears, I would have voted for her as well.
If you choose to reply to me, I’ll ask you kindly not to demean me in an attempt to make your point. It isn’t necessary.
And it really doesn’t serve your cause. It’s ugly and beneath you.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #107
Dustin: FYI, no natural gas line is being built and there are no guarantees that it will be. Open season is in 2010 and most are betting it will be a failed open season. We shall see, but I’m not holding my breath.
Sarah Palin didn’t do anything good for Alaska that I can think of, unless you consider increasing taxes on the state’s #1 tax payer by 400% and redistributing a portion of the money to every Alaskan man, woman and child that didn’t earn it is a good thing. And, no, I’m not referring to the Permanent Fund Dividend. This was a separate check for $1,200.00…. we called it, ‘Sarah buck for Sarah votes’ and had a lot to do with her high approval rating right before McCain tapped her for VP.
Not only that, she signed the 2 largest operating budgets in our state’s history. She’s the most liberal governor we’ve ever had in office.
Did you know that a 12 year-old girl can get an abortion without parental consent here in Alaska? She did NOTHING to change that. NOTHING.
Research her policies. ACES and AGIA are policies that will destroy our economy.
She’s not who she presents herself to be.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #108
Never mind, Dustin. I’ve just read Dave in WA and his prayer/toast at the end hoping for this blog to go down due to this “hit” piece is enough for me. The Palin Christians in action. This is why I stopped going to church.
I won’t be back to read any more comments. Palin supporters might note that an election will take moderates like me. You won’t win us over by insulting people.
I find it offensive and vindictive.
If you, Dustin, choose to support a mirage, you are free to do so. That’s what makes this country great. I hope she is everything you think she is, as I’m sure you deserve to be represented well.
God Speed~~
November 29th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #109
Why would a mother who just had a preemie/down syndrome baby bring her child to work after three days. Not anyone. Sarah Palin “presented” Trig in April, 2008, but he was not born in April, 2008, he was born earlier. If you know anything about preemie/down syndrome babies they do not look like the baby Sarah presented in April.
Mr. John Mark Reynolds, I appreciate your analysis of Ms. Palin’s book but you also need to look further into another lie, her pregnancy. Her water broke in Texas and she did not see a doctor, instead she flew back to Alaska to give birth. No flight attendant notice that she was pregnant.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #110
Another reason why I don’t subscribe to First Things any more.
What an arrogant, condescending, elitist pile of crap!
If you’re so blind as to want an intellectual philosopher king, then bloody move to Europe!
Sarah Palin is just an ordinary American who rose to prominence because of her hard work, integrity, and desire to serve the people of this country. The hate-filled rantings of some of the commenters here is breath-taking… and I suspect the ones from women are typical of those envious of a woman who has it all: happy marriage, many beautiful children, good-looks, and happiness – they parrot the vicious writings of the Wicked Witches of the East: Noonan and Parker.
Hope the author of this hit piece is happy with the nasty comments he garnered here. A murder of crows…
This is why I no longer attend church: I have found too many mean-spirited, hateful people inside them.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:26 pm | #111
ust an American said:
“You have repeated the talking points that the ethics charges were all dismissed. This is not truthful or accurate.”
How about some “accuracy” in that last sentence? Tell us of an ethics charge that was not dismissed?
Otherwise, you’re the one who is lying.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:27 pm | #112
To thos pseudo-Christians who voted “against Palin”:
You voted for a fraudulent, hypocritical, baby-killing supporter because you hate Sarah Palin?
You people are sick.
You are not Christians.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:38 pm | #113
Now I’m really confused. You supported her before but now you don’t because of one book she wrote??? Why did you support her before?? What was that based one?? I guess I didn’t expect her book to be a literary work of art. I don’t look at her as a real writer. Like others, just someone who wanted to tell her story for those interested in hearing it.
The one thing about Palin that some people fail to see is that she speaks for the majority of Americans. (look at polls) and she does not waiver. Far too many American’s feel they have lost their voices to this admin. and congress. Reagan was not just popular because he was a good president, he spoke to the American people, for the American people. He gave them a voice and validated there angst. This is a powerful thing. Never should it be underestimated.
Oh, and I am not a Palin supporter. I’m in the process of weighing it all out.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:38 pm | #114
Realistically, how would Palin bring change to Washington? To balance the budget, you have to have severe spending cuts or large tax increases. Aging baby boomers increasingly will be drawing on Medicare in the near future. If Medicare is off the table, it is not possible to cut federal spending sufficiently to balance the budget. If cutting Medicare is on the table, then Palin as President would have to make a compelling case to the American people to cut back on spending for seniors. Keep in mind that right now, interest on the debt and other mandatory spending (including Medicare) make up two-thirds of the federal budget. That leaves ONLY a third as discretionary federal spending, the part that covers non-entitlement domestic programs, military and national security spending.
Before Medicare legislation was passed in 1965, discretionary spending made up 72% of the budget and mandatory a mere 29%. Of course, before the passage of LBJ’s Great Society legislation, a lot of elderly Americans lived in poverty although some were wealthy enough to meet out of pocket the increasing medical costs that usually occur as one ages. Americans could shoulder the burden of personally helping out with their elderly parents’ health care payments again, as they did before 1965. Or seeing some of the unfortunate fall into poverty and distress in their last years, after a lifetime of hard work. Or they can continue to support Medicare as a program. If the latter, then cutting the discretionary 33.7% of the federal budget to a bare minimum is not going to be enough to bring down the deficit. And it might have implications for national security. Would Palin raise taxes? Support a Value Added Tax?
It’s easy to support theories, much harder to carry out policies in practice and to retain political capital. Matthew Dowd, a former aide to George Bush, appeared on one of the tv news shows this morning. He said of opposition to a possible war tax that “this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else. We have a war; we don’t have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we think, ‘Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we’re not going to have a draft, we’re not going to pay for it, we’re not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.’” He added, “David Obey’s idea [for a war tax] I think underlines the problem that we don’t ask people — when we say these things are important — we don’t ask the country to come together for them.”
November 29th, 2009 | 5:41 pm | #115
Mr. Reynolds, why did the Palin Mafia threaten to expose this blogger for what was posted. All she had to do was show medical papers that Trig is hers.
http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/08/whos-not-your-mama.html
Nooooooooooooooo……….she decided that telling America that Bristol was 5 months pregnant would squash the rumors. Bristol did not have to be thrown under the bus like that. All Ms. Palin should have done is to present proper documentation that she gave birth to Trig, but she can’t, because it is not true.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:45 pm | #116
Yeah, while attacking Sarah Palin for every possible flaw we get leaders like Obama and Biden.
Can we please step down from the plain of perfection and live in the real world for a little while?
Sarah will either run or not run. If she runs, she will either win or not win.
It’s pretty simple.
And the people will be the judges just as they have for the 44 prior presidents, many of which possessed much much worse personal failings and perceived lack of “intellect.”
You reviewed her book as as an academic. I read her book as someone interested in hearing her story in her own voice. On that scale, I give her high marks. She told her story. I found it interesting.
Oh, and apparently you are unaware that Obama took so long to write his first memoir his agent had to get a second contract for him, and finally his wife persuaded him to ask Bill Ayers for help.
So yeah, let’s compare Palin unfavorably to the literary talents of Bill Ayers. At least Palin openly acknowledges her “ghost writer.” Obama claims to have written his book solo.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:55 pm | #117
I had the same initial response, the fact that she had a ghostwriter bothered me a bit, as I’d rather get it straight from a person’s writing voice. And especially in the beginning some of the writing seemed descriptively forced. As I got further into the book I became less distracted by this. What’s funny is as I was reading her book, it made me recall things in my life, not really because they were all that similar, but there was some connection there that triggered my memories.
I think she has the potential to be a great leader, and after being torn down so much by the media, what else can they do to her? If she is able to articulate her ideas about national policy on her own campaign where she calls the shots, and proves to be competent like she was at the state level, the non-legit negative media attacks are shown to be the shallow petty things they are.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:55 pm | #118
Gunsmoke
November 29th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #109
Why would a mother who just had a preemie/down syndrome baby bring her child to work after three days. Not anyone. Sarah Palin “presented” Trig in April, 2008, but he was not born in April, 2008, he was born earlier. If you know anything about preemie/down syndrome babies they do not look like the baby Sarah presented in April.
Mr. John Mark Reynolds, I appreciate your analysis of Ms. Palin’s book but you also need to look further into another lie, her pregnancy. Her water broke in Texas and she did not see a doctor, instead she flew back to Alaska to give birth. No flight attendant notice that she was pregnant.
~~~~~~~~
That’s quite enough of your trash. Sarah Palin was pregnant…I was with her in Texas that weekend. Her water did NOT break, it leaked and then stopped. She didn’t go into labor. She spoke with her doctor before she flew home. The flight attendant did notice that she was pregnant, but said she didn’t appear to be in any distress or discomfort. Her doctor had to induce labor THE NEXT DAY in the hospital.
Take your lies and your garbage and go somewhere else.
November 29th, 2009 | 5:57 pm | #119
An interesting article, John, and more informative than the guttersniping reviews from the literati – who wrote their review of Palin’s book more to impress their literati peers than an honest book-review.
You made much of the dearth of Palin referencing – I found it quite ironic, that you did not reference your own quotes (such as render unto Caesar). Shades of the pot and kettle (ref. anonymous)!!
November 29th, 2009 | 6:10 pm | #120
Well – after reading the first few paragraphs of you review, I realized something:
You are “thinker” in the SAME WAY that Glenn Beck is a “thinker”.
By that – I mean that both of you do it in short, smelly, spurts.
You’re a clown and a poseur. Get Lost.
November 29th, 2009 | 6:11 pm | #121
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCozfwp0x_U
Catherine. She was found guilty of unlawfully abusing her power.
November 29th, 2009 | 6:16 pm | #122
Sam, found guilty?
that’s a elgal term, which means a trial occurred.
Of course, you’re totally wrong, and Palin’s never been convicted of any crimes.
You made that up because Palin threatens you, and you analyzed her ideas and realized you would have to lie to attack her.
An Obama campaign member leaked his own report saying Palin wrongfully abused her power. He has been discredited, and Palin was completely exonerated. In fact, she has faced a ton of scrutiny, much of it illegal (such as her private email being hacked), and nothing has been found. That’s why you had to lie about her being found guilty… you’ve got nothing. you democrats spent millions of the people’s money suing Palin, over and over, and I’m sorry, but you have only succeeded in proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she dotted every i and crossed every t. She may be a horrible leader… that’s a matter of opinion. She might be an idiot, she obviously knows little about Plato, and she is not the best interviewer on the planet.
But ethics? You democrats proved she’s got great ethics. You will have to keep inventing new lies to cover your old lies, but eventually, everyone is simply going to assume you’re lying. That’s part of Palin’s strength, sadly. Nothing anyone accuses her of is taking seriously anymore.
November 29th, 2009 | 6:19 pm | #123
Jimbob, you’re right. If the left had reviewed Palin’s book seriously, they obviously would have had a much better product. Instead, they just bashed her. The Washington Posts’s review admitted it didn’t even read her book before dismissing it.
I think it’s foolish to complain that this book failed to convince one to vote for her. But as a memoir, there’s plenty to like and dislike about the book.