Sarah Palin Resigns: I had to watch it in pieces; it’s really every bit as bad as you can imagine.

Sarah Palin has never exactly been a stellar public speaker but this speech is awful beyond the telling. There’s all kinds of speculation already on the web about her resignation. Despite her comments in the video, TPM quotes a tweet from earlier that reads:

We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned

This does not sound like someone on the verge of resigning. Everything from her presser – her manner, her body language, the rushed and chaotic speaking – sounds to me like a woman on the verge. She’s trying to get through the presser – she’s sounds like a whore in church. Josh Marshall describes it:

Okay, we’re getting our first indication of what happened. It seems like a colossal sulk on Palin’s part, or perhaps better to say an effort on her part to ingeniously combine anti-liberal media bias agitation with Christianist politics by portraying herself as having been crucified by the liberal media.

On the heels of this week’s Vanity Fair article that eviscerated her, I think Josh Marshall is right. Palin was not ready for prime time when John McCain picked her to run for veep. She’s a female Rush Limbaugh – egotistical and thin skinned, a loud mouthed boor and schoolyard bully who has managed to get as far as brazenness and dumb luck can take her. Andrew Sullivan has probably been her harshest critic from day one; he chronicled what he called “The Weird Lies of Sarah Palin” – lies that he defined as outside the normal political lies, lies that were immediately and obviously disprovable, lies that served no purpose other than making the immediate moment feel good regardless of what went before or would come after. He recently summed her up in what may be one of the harshest posts I’ve read from a professional journalist:

As the months have gone by since John McCain revealed his total cynicism and contempt for America’s national security by selecting one Sarah Palin to be a potential vice-president of the United States, we have learned that every single ghastly attribute we discovered in the campaign is worse than we thought at the time. The narcissism, the pathological and incessant lying, the viciousness, the delusions of grandeur, the vindictiveness, the fathomless and proud ignorance, the opportunism, the vanity, the white trash concupiscence and fraudulence in almost every respect: these are now indisputable. How an advanced democracy came that close to having this farce of a candidate running the most powerful country on earth reveals how deep the corruption of our politics and especially our media are.

I remain unsurprised that Sullivan, the proper British Tory, finds the Palin contemptible. Her success in American politics condemns our political media and system. She’s awful – indisputably one of the most laughable candidates to have ever come to the national stage; she’s a bumbling, gibbering idiot, grasping for whatever she can get and hoping to turn it to her benefit. Palin’s folksy demeanor – like George W. Bush’s – was always a cover for something else; in Bush’s case it was his privileged upbringing, in her case a coldly rapacious self-aggrandizing egotism. Her husband and children have been the props on the Sarah show for a long time. The schtick works in Wasilla – elsewhere it’s not so effective.

At the end of the day, it’s entirely possible she’s resigning ahead of some new revelation that would force her removal from office. It’s entirely possible that yet another of her odd and intensely personal blood feuds with some person who betrayed her (in a real or imagined way) was about to explode. I actually hope those things aren’t true – that she really is resigning because she’s realized she wants more time with her family – that the world of politics is simply not making her happy and she wants to get out so she can dedicate herself to what makes her happy.

  1. #1 by Ken on July 3, 2009 - 4:33 pm

    John McCain should have picked Romney but McCain’s pettiness and ego would not allow it. He would have had a much better chance, even though I don’t think he would have won anyway.

    I wish Sarah Palin good luck. I do hope she didn’t resign to focus on a presidential campaign because I do not see her getting the nomination let alone getting elected.

    • #2 by Glenden Brown on July 3, 2009 - 4:50 pm

      Ken – this is one of those situations where I think it is fair to say almost anyone would have been better than Sarah Palin. However, Romney’s Mormonism is a problem for the Republican party’s religious conservatives, who still tell pollsters they would vote against someone simply because he is Mormon. I’m not sure Romney would have actually been any better.

      I think that in choosing Palin McCain was hoping he would get a running mate who would motivate Democrats to pull their punches; which might have worked had Palin been even marginally competent on the campaign trail. Her public persona was a disaster – Democrats didn’t have to spend much time or energy attacking her since she quickly became a complete farce. The moment Tina Fey stepped on stage and started her Palin imitation, it was over for Sarah Palin.

    • #3 by James Farmer on July 5, 2009 - 11:52 am

      Ken:

      I hope Palin keeps herself in the forefront of national politics. She is, truly, the gift that keeps on giving.

  2. #4 by Van Gundy on July 3, 2009 - 5:02 pm

    Wow, pretty obvious she got under your skin Glendon. I enjoy the raw speculative nature of your attacks. I’m sure she can’t disappear quickly enough.

    • #5 by Glenden Brown on July 3, 2009 - 8:37 pm

      So by my count, you’ve posted under four separate pseudonyms in the last few days there. That’s how our local troll Glenn Hofer behaves so I’m guessing you’re just being a troll too.

  3. #6 by Van Gundy on July 3, 2009 - 9:25 pm

    He, me and the rest of the intelligent world. Well, for your information, not even close. Funny how the opposition all looks, sounds alike to any left leaner. Except maybe for Sarah, she is an original.

    • #7 by Glenden Brown on July 3, 2009 - 11:06 pm

      As I said, you’re behaving like a troll.

    • #8 by Larry Bergan on July 4, 2009 - 1:33 am

      What are you here for Gundy? Tell the truth. We are not the department of Homeland Security, and we have no idea who you really are…

      …or is it true?

  4. #9 by cav on July 3, 2009 - 11:51 pm

    McCain’s petiness and ego…That was the other choice we had!

    Which is not to say that the ‘Other’ other choice was all that great. I’ll grant you that.

    McKinney wasn’t gonna get it – that’s for sure, nor Kucinnich.

    • #10 by Larry Bergan on July 4, 2009 - 1:00 am

      I know this is way off topic, but speaking of McKinney, did you realize she is being held in an Israeli prison because she, along with other prominent figures, were trying to take building, medical supplies and crayons to Palestine. This is one gutsy girl, who like all other gutsy people left in America is considered to be nutty by the “liberal” (yeah right) media.How many people know about this.

      This isn’t news that deserves dignified coverage?

      Even though I doubt one hundredth of one percent of the American people know anything about this important story, the trolls are out in force, deluging the comments sections with filth and bile

      Who are these trolls/people? What is their aim?

  5. #11 by Larry Bergan on July 4, 2009 - 1:54 am

    Republicans just love those sports analogies, don’t they? Palin is no exception in this video.

    Sports is designed to be a game. Sort of like when dogs pretend they’re going to hurt each other to prepare themselves for the real thing. I imagine that’s why the term “sportsmanship” was coined to remind people that it’s just a game.

    Politics is not a sport. It doesn’t always involve defeating an enemy.

  6. #12 by brewski on July 4, 2009 - 5:22 am

    Glenden, speaking of “not ready for prime time”, it is now clear the junior senator from Illinois, with a grand total of 1 year in the US senate when he declared his canidacy, is not ready for prime time. As Tom Daschle said “his greatest asset is his lack of track record.”

    We are all paying for that now.

  7. #13 by cav on July 4, 2009 - 6:52 am

    Caribo Barbie, Mooselina, Sarahcuda…good times. RIP

  8. #14 by cav on July 4, 2009 - 7:07 am

    She can mooove to Utah and herd cows…between building projects.

  9. #15 by Van Gundy on July 4, 2009 - 8:27 am

    The fact that McKinney and the crimes against her by Israel is not reported in the mainstream media should leave a clue as to where the agenda is headed, and who is directing it. Nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, more to do with ignoring the crimes of an ally who will aid and abet in helping maintain the Empire, as long as they get their cut.

    To her credit she won’t sign the deportation order saying she violated Israeli law, and as such will spend at least 3 days in an Israeli jail.

    No need to expect any justice or change from the current admin, which looks curiously just like the last one with regard to holding Israel accountable for her crimes. When you are in on them, that would make you an accomplice. Our people are doing the right things, our government has turned, and is now operating outside the scope of its obligations and duties. Doesn’t matter who is running it.

    Just hope to be upstream when this levee breaks. The recent “stimulus” being little more than smearing and troweling concrete into the spreading cracks in the dam of the republic.

    Palin represents the voice of America, which no doubt will be pushing back against a government that has fallen down, and its actions outside the constitution has it sitting of the razors edge as the main actor in what it is increasingly becoming, a domestic enemy.

  10. #16 by Van Gundy on July 4, 2009 - 8:53 am

  11. #17 by cav on July 4, 2009 - 7:07 pm

    In our liberal press Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin hold sway while former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and several other activists remained in an Israeli prison Thursday after refusing to sign a deportation form that they claim is self-incriminating.

    In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children’s toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country’s territorial waters.

    “We were in international waters on a boat delivering humanitarian aid to people in Gaza when the Israeli Navy ships surrounded us and illegally threatened us, dismantled our navigation equipment, boarded and confiscated the ship,” she said in a statement, adding that they were immediately taken into custody.

    “Immigration officials in Israel said they did not want to keep us, but we remain imprisoned,” she said.

  12. #18 by Glenden Brown on July 5, 2009 - 1:02 pm

    Here are two quotes about Palin from today’s blogs:

    Andrew Sullivan:

    But the abruptness of the withdrawal is so weird one has to wonder. I mean: she managed to face down a pregnant unwed daughter, an arrested relative, a delinquent son, a secessionist husband, 32 absurd lies (and counting), a completely loopy pregnancy story and carried on regardless, winking and posing away. I mean: those Runners World photos don’t look like a a politician in clinical depression, ground down by exposure. So what possible scandal could be big enough to force her to quit this suddenly, without a prepared statement, and shocking her entire staff? What could be so big that this extremely ambitious woman would do something that all but ends her potential credibility as a national politician? No one can elect a president who couldn’t even finish one term of office as governor because of press pressure. Right?

    And Paul Rosenberg at Open Left:

    It was a slow newsday, Friday before a holiday, so why shouldn’t Sarah Palin suck up all the oxygen in five continents? If only that stupid Michael Jackson fellah hadn’t died the week before, she could have totally pulled it off. As it was, she did pretty damn well for a couple of hours there. Her big secret? Same as it ever was: she lied. Seven ways from Sunday. She lied about being cleared in all the Alaska investigations; she lied about their cost; she lied about wanting to serve the people of Alaska; she lied about fulfilling her goals; she lied about people attacking her son Trig; she lied about being like a point guard; she lied when she said “and” and “the”. She spoke, therefore she lied.

    Why does Sarah Palin lie? She lies to get out of trouble; she lies to shift blame; she lies to get even; she lies to get ahead; she lies to hurt her enemies; she lies to amuse her friends; she lies to relieve boredom; she lies to have some fun; she lies because truth is bother; she lies as a key to strategy; she lies because she has no plan; she lies to confuse anyone trying to keep track; she lies to make sense to those not keeping track; she lies for power; she lies because lying works for her; she lies just for the hell of it; she lies because she can; she lies because that’s how she expresses her freedom–a very libertarian idea of freedom, I might well add.

  13. #19 by brewski on July 5, 2009 - 5:30 pm

    I am still trying to figure out why Obama lies. She isn’t President, he is.

  14. #20 by mikeb302000 on July 6, 2009 - 4:15 am

    That was the weirdest speech I’ve ever heard. Those early rumors, which seem more unlikely every day, that she resigned to prepare to run for President made me nervous. Nothing would shock me from these people. But, just thinking about the last time she was in the news daily makes me tired. I sure wouldn’t want to go through that all over again.

  15. #21 by Uncle Rico on July 6, 2009 - 6:12 am

    Ok, finally watched the clip. I know she talked for 6 minutes and 54 seconds, but how come she didn’t say anything?

  16. #22 by cav on July 6, 2009 - 7:23 am

    The ducks (in the background) provided the real content.

  17. #23 by brewski on July 6, 2009 - 8:12 am

    Putting Palin’s personal and professional pros and cons aside, I think some folks need to think about the general treatment of Palin compared to any other policitician. Gov Palin has had 16 formal ethics complaints filed against her and has been cleared by 15 of them so far. One ethics complaint was that she was wearing a jacket with a snowmobile company logo on it. As it turns out, most Alaskans own jackets with some sort of snow mobile company logo on them. Then there is the treatment of her children. Some left wing bloggers have mocked her son Trig who has Down’s syndrome. David Letterman made a “joke” if you could call it that, about her 14 year old daughter getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. People on OneUtah seem to find great humor in the fatc that Palin has an accent. This last one is particularly ironic coming from a state with its own quirky set of pronunciations. And I can’t think of children of any other politician who have been subject to such mockery from the media, both mainstream and alternative.

    At least this treatment has clearly illustrated the lack of any moral high ground held by OneUtah posters, the media, comedians and other commentators.

    • #24 by James Farmer on July 6, 2009 - 10:40 am

      brewski:

      Sorry that your girlfriend got the shit kicked out her – and there is a lot of it. too. She deserves nothing less!!

      Cry us a river elsewhere.

    • #25 by James Farmer on July 6, 2009 - 10:59 am

      PS.

      Here is a clip on Fox News calling her a nut case, too.

      Guess that settles it, brewski, your girlfriend is wacky!

  18. #26 by cav on July 6, 2009 - 8:30 am

    In the same way that we seem to need a suitable enemy for the perpetuation of our empire, we also need someone to mock and ridicule.

    It’s just our way. Tasteless and mean as it is.

    Just don’t let it be me!

  19. #27 by Remo (changed from cav) on July 6, 2009 - 9:16 am

    It’s also been suggested there’s a scandal brewing. Lest we forget, she IS a major party muckity-muck.

    That should be becoming apparent before long if there’s no celebrity death to divert our attention.

  20. #28 by chorwacja on July 6, 2009 - 9:39 am

    It’s not like she was fulfilling her gubernatorial duties anyway. She’s either about to start running for president – I hope she does. It’ll be much easier for Obama to win reelection 🙂

  21. #29 by brewski on July 6, 2009 - 1:11 pm

    James, I guess you didn’t read the first sentence of of post, or the rest of of it anyway.

    But reading your email I guess it is ok in your post to mock children with Down’s Syndrome and to make jokes about child rape. Glad we are clear about morals and ethics.

    • #30 by James Farmer on July 6, 2009 - 1:20 pm

      brew:

      Nowhere (and I challenge you to point out otherwise) have I advocated that it is ok to mock and joke as you suggest.

      Further, you are taking rather bold liberties to suggest that others have done so.

      No, I think your fascination (infatuation??) for Palin has clouded your judgment and interfered with your reading/hearing abilities.

    • #31 by James Farmer on July 6, 2009 - 3:01 pm

      brew:

      Just in case you cannot stomach all twenty minutes of your girlfriend’s resignation speech, here is her speech condensed into 90 seconds. Trust me … the 90 second version is far easier on the brain than watching the entire speech and trying to figure out just what the heck she is saying!

  22. #32 by brewski on July 6, 2009 - 8:09 pm

    James, yes you did:

    “She deserves nothing less!!” was your response to my saying that these specific treatments were over the line.

    The examples I gave are factual. They are not bold liberties.

    Also, I did not say she is not a whack job even once. All of my posts have been specifically on how she has been treated viz a viz other politicians and special note of the treatment of her children.

    So your response to my call for laying off her children and treating her with the same low standards reserved for any other whack job, say Cynthia McKinney, is that I must be infatuated with her.

    Again, thanks for proving my point again and again.

    • #33 by James Farmer on July 6, 2009 - 8:34 pm

      brew:

      I recommend that you lay off the booze until 5:00 pm. Now you are appearing just plain disoriented. Sorry your infatuation has you tied up in such a knot.

  23. #34 by cav on July 7, 2009 - 7:01 am

    We coulda chosen the Hilton girl, my friends.

    • #35 by James Farmer on July 7, 2009 - 7:13 am

      Right you are, cav. Indeed, I think McCain would have done himself a favor choosing the lovely Paris over the bizarre Palin.

  24. #36 by brewski on July 7, 2009 - 7:41 am

    James, so your point is again that I am tied up in a knot due to my in fatuation since the only point I have made is that people like you have gone over the line in cartooning Palin’s Down Syndrom baby and made “jokes” about child rape?

    The morals of the left are indeed scary.

    • #37 by James Farmer on July 7, 2009 - 8:50 am

      Brew:

      Again, you are fabricating nonsense from wholecloth where you state that I have cartooned Trig or joked about the rape of Palin’s child. I will lampoon Palin till the bloody end – she deserves nothing less – but will not and have not crossed the line you define into lampooning Trig or the 14 year old; the 18 year old, on the other hand, is fair game given her recent injection of personal beliefs – e.g., abstinence – onto the national stage.

  25. #38 by cav on July 7, 2009 - 10:03 am

    We really should bring ‘the boy who raped Palin’s daughter’ into this. It seems he’s on the path to stardom in L.A. Perhaps even a future in politics. My heads begins to hurt, but I really have to hand it to Sarah for answering the call of patriotic service even if the masses are misinformed or disinterested.

  26. #39 by brewski on July 7, 2009 - 4:11 pm

    James,
    Palin went to the Yankees game with her 14 year old daughter.
    Letterman made a joke about her getting knocked up by A-Rod.
    You said “she deserved it”.

    Just get over that you have no morals and we will all get along better.

    • #40 by James Farmer on July 7, 2009 - 7:23 pm

      brew:

      Sorry, but I did not say the 14 year old deserved anything and neither did Letterman. Stop reading between the lines and appearing like an idiot!

  27. #41 by brewski on July 8, 2009 - 9:24 am

    Let me get this straight. I don’t think it is that complicated.
    Palin went to a Yankees game with her 14 year old daughter, Lettermen said she got knocked up by A-Rod, and you said “she deserves it”. Which lines am I reading between? What did I make up. Which part of your immorality are you hiding from?

    • #42 by James Farmer on July 8, 2009 - 4:12 pm

      brewski:

      I said that Palin deserves the criticism I choose to level at her – she deserves it, and I will continue to level such criticism. I did not say her daughter deserved to be raped and you are making yourself look like a complete idiot by suggesting otherwise.

  28. #43 by CommonSense on July 8, 2009 - 10:44 am

    Brewski, you idiot, you well know, as do the Palins and everyone else who is running around with this righteous indignation on their sleeves, that Letterman did not know which, if any, daughters were at the baseball game, and the subject of his joke was CLEARLY not the 14 year-old, but the older daughter who is an adult and who voluntarily entered herself into the public discussion of getting knocked up. Sometimes you seem somewhat intelligent, but the fact that you join in on perpetuating this misreading of the intent makes me wonder. I realize you don’t actually believe it, and neither does anyone else except the seriously retarded.

  29. #44 by brewski on July 8, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    The point is that despite the numerous moral shortcomings of the children of many other politicians which come to mind, I can’t think of any of them which have been treated by the MSM and the blogosphere the way the Palins have.

    It’s easy and fun to pick on kids who go to public school and have accents, but by all means lets be delicate to the Andover/Hyannis crowd.

  30. #45 by Glenden Brown on July 8, 2009 - 12:23 pm

    Brewski – Your defense of Palin is utterly laughable.

    Palin and her family got a 1/1000th of what the Clinton’s had to go through but the Clinton’s are still standing – hell they’re standing proud – while whiny ass titty baby Sarah ran away weeping and crying about her delicate feel bads. Her kids got a tiny sliver of what Chelsea Clinton had to go through and Chelsea is still standing proud. Elected Republicans made fun of Chelsea Clinton on a regular basis. Palin and her family got some criticism for being a bunch of grasping, hypocritical know nothings and Sarah ran away weeping and pretending she is the victim.

    Sarah Palin is a joke, a national embarrassment. Proud of her ignorance, egotistical and incurious. Insights from inside the campaign show her to be a vain, arrogant, stupid woman who couldn’t be bothered to learn the basics and who scorned the advice of anyone who didn’t stroke her ego. This isn’t about social class – Bill Clinton was a working class kid, Barack Obama was raised by a single mother, John Edwards was a mill-worker’s son. Joe Biden, for cripes sake, when to a public university. Robert Byrd got is law degree at night. It’s about the fact that Sarah Palin is a deliberately uneducated woman who is proud of her lack of knowledge. She got a bit of criticism, dressed herself in sackcloth and ashes and ran away crying. She’s a thin-skinned quitter and I hope she stays gone.

  31. #46 by Brewski on July 8, 2009 - 12:36 pm

    Gleden, what exactly did Chelsea go through? A contractual hands-off treatment by the media, a place at Stanford, a job at JP Morgan? Yes, she really has it rough. I feel her pain.

    • #47 by Glenden Brown on July 8, 2009 - 12:48 pm

      Brewski you ignorant slut!

      On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, ‘Did you know there’s a White House dog?’ Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

      Or this:

      Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

      — Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

      Two quick and high profile examples.

      But of course, not the point. Sarah Palin is a joke. She’s not just ignorant, she is proud of being a know nothing. She resigned because she’s a thin skinned crybaby.

  32. #48 by Brewski on July 8, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    You mean Joe “Hezbollah has been kicked out of Lebanon, FDR was President in 1929” Biden?
    Or do you mean Joe “Paid lobbyist for Delaware credit card companies, my family lobbies me for $500K a year” Biden?

  33. #49 by brewski on July 8, 2009 - 2:18 pm

    I have never listed to Rush Limbaugh and have no plans to. So I will defer to your expertise on anything he said.

    As for the McCain quote, I thought it was actually true and not a joke.

    • #50 by Glenden Brown on July 8, 2009 - 2:51 pm

      So then you think it’s okay for Senators to attack teenagers? But you are all up in arms about a bad joke from David Letterman?

      Yeah.

      Hypocrite.

  34. #51 by brewski on July 8, 2009 - 2:33 pm

    Joe Biden went to prep school – Archmere Academy

    Barak Obama went to prep school – Punahou School

    Edwards pays $300 for a haircut

    All anti private school voucher people, ironically.

    • #52 by James Farmer on July 8, 2009 - 4:45 pm

      brew:

      Where is the irony?

  35. #53 by cav on July 8, 2009 - 4:33 pm

    Someone has to occupy the abandoned halls of aristocracy, but we should never forget: WE employ them to do it!

  36. #54 by brewski on July 8, 2009 - 5:29 pm

    “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected”

    One might think those who benefited from private schools might be sympathetic to us poor people who would like to go to private school. But apparently not.

    As for Edwards, he just supports an Aquanet tax credit.

    • #55 by James Farmer on July 8, 2009 - 6:46 pm

      brew:

      There is nothing preventing you from going to private school if you so desire.

  37. #56 by Glenden Brown on July 8, 2009 - 7:06 pm

    Brewski – this may or may not make sense but my experience in private school convinced me that private schools aren’t the answer a lot of people think they are. I attended Judge Memorial in Salt Lake City. At the time (and I suspect still) it was an academically challenging, amazing place. But I also saw people come to Judge, sent by their parents who were convinced it was the answer to their kids problems, only to see that the school didn’t solve the kids problems. I thrived at Judge; my brother by contrast struggled. I saw other kids struggle as well and others thrive. Private schools are (often, though not always) academically superior but in college I had peers who were from both public and private schools; success in college was not determined by public or private high school.

  38. #57 by Brewski on July 8, 2009 - 10:11 pm

    So James and Glenden, are you in the Obama/Clinton camp of school choice for rich people only?

    Yes I understand the pros and cons of private schools and what they are and what they are not.

    But the issue here is a moral one. It’s that, in general, rich people can choose to send their kids to private schools and poor people don’t have that choice. The Obamas chose, the Clintons chose, the Bidens chose, but screw the little people. Far more important to keep the AFT constributions flowing.

    • #58 by Glenden Brown on July 8, 2009 - 10:50 pm

      Brewski, it’s interesting to me that you have drawn exactly the wrong lesson from looking at private schools. The moral isn’t that rich people get to send their kids to private schools, it is that our public schools should be academically every bit as good as our best private schools and it’s a blemish on our nation that they aren’t. To borrow a phrase: I think public schools should be palaces of learning. Almost forty years ago, anti-tax conservatives fostered tax revolts that have starved public schools of funds – notably in California which once had the finest public school system in the world; the conservative response has been to convince people the problem isn’t that public schools are badly and inefficiently funded but that private schools are the answer. Don’t kid yourself. Again, you obviously didn’t figure out what private schools are and aren’t. They aren’t for every student, they don’t work for every student. I’m not convinced they work for the majority of students. Certainly Judge – to which I am profoundly loyal – would not work for every kid. The absurd notion that if you can only get your kids into private schools things will be fine is a lie. To use other terms – a fucked up kid in public school will still be fucked up in private school.

      In all your absurd resentment of what it means to be well educated, you have missed the point: it’s not about where you go to school, or college or vacation, it’s what you do with what you learn there, with the chances life gives you. Sarah Palin got elected governor and walked away crying a little baby because it was too hard. Wouldn’t matter if she’d gone to boarding schools and Oxford and graduate school at Stanford – she’d still be a whiny quitter.

    • #59 by James Farmer on July 8, 2009 - 10:53 pm

      brew:

      Now you are just talking plain stupid. Indeed, under your logic, we should all be driving Porches and flying private jets, too, because rich people can choose to own such items while poor folks cannot.

  39. #60 by Larry Bergan on July 9, 2009 - 2:29 am

    Teachers need to be turned loose.

    The best teachers inspire creativity, love their job and aren’t afraid to take risks, but it comes at a cost to their careers these days. Any teacher who tried to alert their students to the constitutional crisis the Republican party has thrust upon us faced an instant media circus and they still do. Just because Obama was elected hasn’t changed the media’s force of habit.

    It’s always been a local problem too. I once had a literature teacher whom I will never forget. I think she may have sensed a drug problem at the school, (Skyline High – emphasis on high.) One day I made my way to third period and experienced something that wasn’t boring. Ms. Cooley had decorated the classroom in a psychedelic fashion and treated us to a song I don’t think she really liked. (An argument could be made that the song was one of the weirdest musical creations of the already weird and wonderful sixties.)

    We were treated to an entire album side lasting 17 minutes entitled “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” by Iron Butterfly.

    I was jolted and inspired; the other teachers complained.

  40. #61 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 8:31 am

    Glenden, I understand this point of view. But the down on the ground pratical reality for parents and children is that Mrs. Obama, the Clintons, the Bidens and all of these liberals did indeed get to choose to send their kids to private schools. Let me repeat this. They got that choice. Other poor people don’t get that choice and these liberals are against poor people from getting that choice. That is hypocritical and immoral. Period.

    Why didn’t Barack go to Kailua High, why didn’t Chelsea go to some DC high school (where, by the way, DC has the #1 by far most spending per pupil of any district in the country, so there goes your starving for cash argument), why didn’t Joe Biden go to Wilmington High, or wherever he is from? They got to choose.

    I would be happy if Congress passed a law requiring all Members of Congress and White House officials, as moral leaders of our government, and to set a shining example, to send their kids to public schools and state colleges only. If there is no benefit to private schools as you pointed out, then there should be no objection.

    I am not going to reply to the Porsche comment. Too silly for words.

    • #62 by James Farmer on July 9, 2009 - 9:20 am

      brew:

      The comment may seem silly to you, but it is spot on in response to your comment. Your entire thought process is based on disdain for liberals when, in reality, it should be based on disdain for those who can afford to send their children to private schools. I won’t provide you with a list of republican silver spoons that sent their children to private schools, as I am certain you are capable of coming up with that information yourself.

      What you might ponder, however, is how families like the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens managed to send their children to private schools (these families were far from having the wealth of the Bush family at the time). If you do, you might just discover that they did it the old fashioned way – they scrimped and saved and managed how ever they could to send their kid to a school of their choice.

      All we hear from you, on the other hand, is akin to give me a freebie … they can do it and so should I. Your commentary is quite pathetic and uninformed. If you want to attend a private school, I suggest you start studying and saving! But either way, stop your belly aching and crying … it makes you appear no different than Sarah Palin!

  41. #63 by Glenden Brown on July 9, 2009 - 9:12 am

    Brewski – Your logic has failed you.

    My family was not wealthy but I went to Judge and then to a very expensive private college. The choice exists, the option exists. No one is talking about making it illegal for poor people to send their kids to private schools. Many private schools have scholarship programs; others offer discounted tuition to students from poor families. Vouchers, let me say this simply, which you seem to have mistakenly identified as a solution, are NOT the solution to our educational issues. (FWIW, even if we had a voucher system in Utah today, very few if any students could avail themselves of it since our private schools do not have available space for new students.)

    The issue is one of using government resources in the best manner possible – and supporting private, religious schools with taxpayers dollars is clearly a violation of the establishment clause. There is a way around it – in Canada, students can get vouchers to go to private schools, but any private school accepting vouchers must use the same curriculum and textbooks as public schools – and they may not use tax dollars to teach sectarian religious values. I don’t picture the proponents of vouchers accepting such standards, do you?

    It is not hypocritical or immoral to oppose using government money for sectarian purposes. You seem bothered by the notion of some people exercising a choice you want others to exercise. None of the families you’ve cited asked the government to pay for their kids educations. They did it themselves, with their own money.

    And no the Porsche comment isn’t silly; it is a fair counterexample. It’s unfair I can’t afford to choose a Porsche but a rich person can so can’t I get a voucher to buy one?

  42. #64 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 9:50 am

    You miss the point entirely. It is not about silver spoon vs. no silver spoon. It is about hypocrisy. Silver-spooned conservatives are in favor of voucher programs to allow the “least among us” to have the best opportunties possible wherever that may be for them. Silver-spooned liberals want the best opportunities for themselves and no one else. Facts are facts.

    I would love it if all public schools were as good as private schools. But as the Obamas, Bidens and Kennedys have shown, in their judgment their kids were better off in the private schools. And the reality is, cost is a barrier to many people. You can’t argue that it isn’t.

    As for the silliness of your Porsche and jet plane comment, I was hoping I didn’t need to explain this to you but apparently I do. Education always has been and always will be the primary way that people realize their full potential in terms of opportunity and enrichment. We as a society decided a long time ago (following the mostly Scottish protestant model that everyone has to read the bible for themselves) that mandatory, universal and free primary and secondary education was for all. None of the above can be said for Porsches and jets. That is why your comment is insane.

    And Glenden, you need to stop using terms you don’t understand like “the establishment clause”. Students have been using tax funds to go to Notre Dame, Georgetown, TCU, Baylor, etc for decades, and more recently students in select areas have used vouchers to go to Sidwell Friends. This has been upheld by the courts. You are reaching out of your depth when you used big words like that.

    As for fair counterexamples, I assume then that you think it is not hypocritical for liberal members of Congress to take the generous Congressional health care benefit, and not offer the same plan at he same price for their constituents. I mean after all, poor people just need to work harder and save their pennies and they could buy it themselves.

    • #65 by Glenden Brown on July 9, 2009 - 10:36 am

      You are so cute when you try to be insulting!

      Of course things like Pell Grants have been used for university educations – since you know unlike many primary and secondary private schools universities aren’t in the business of religious indoctrination.

      Vouchers are a red herring – designed to do exactly what they’re doing to you. Distract you, stoke your class resentments and not actually offer, you know, real policy solutions. Voucher programs don’t actually deliver what they promise. Here’s an abstract of a peer reviewed study:

      A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. This study reviews recent empirical research on the effect of school vouchers on student achievement (particularly for low-income minorities attending private schools) and the effect of the threat of vouchers on low-performing public schools. The study examines the Milwaukee voucher experiment, the Cleveland voucher program, and new voucher research. Research on the voucher programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee indicate that for African American students these programs have little or no positive effect on their academic achievement. Research from Dayton, Ohio, New York, New York, and Washington, D.C. shows no significant test score gains for Hispanic and White voucher students but statistically significant gains for African American students. However, several methodological issues make these comparisons of achievement problematic. Findings that the threat of vouchers for students in failing public school caused math and writing gains among Florida’s lowest-performing schools to increase significantly more than gains of higher-performing schools are plagued by methodological problems. Three papers are appended: “What Caused the Effects of the Florida A+ Program: Ratings or Vouchers?” (Doug Harris); “Replication of Jay Greene’s Voucher Effect Study Using Texas Performance Data” (Amanda Brownson); and “Replication of Jay Greene’s Voucher Effect Study Using North Carolina Data” (Helen F. Ladd and Elizabeth J. Glennie). (Contains 33 endnotes and 29 references.) (SM)

      Of course this is all ancillary. None of it changes the fact that since you can’t offer anything like a defense of Sarah Palin’s public lunacy you want to vent your class resentments about school vouchers.

    • #66 by James Farmer on July 9, 2009 - 10:53 am

      Education always has been and always will be the primary way that people realize their full potential in terms of opportunity and enrichment.

      Precisely, and that is why we owe it to ourselves to maintain public education in the best possible way. Sucking money out of the system so you can go to a private school is not the best possible way.

      PS I went to a public K-12 school and finished at one of the best private colleges in the nation/world. It was a lot of work and didn’t cost me a dime, which neither me nor my parents had anyway. As I said before, start studying and quit your complaining.

  43. #67 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 12:14 pm

    I have never desired to defend Palin so I don’t why you ask me to. I am about ideas, not the cult of personalities that you Obama Kool Aid drinkers seem to prefer. Not very intellectual spending your time ranting about Palin’s personality when I don’t care.

    So Sacha and Malia are getting religiously indocrintaed by the Quakers at Sidwell Friends, along with their voucher-carrying classmates from DC?

    The money argument is a shallow one. You know as well as I do that there is no empirical relationship to the amount of money thrown at schools and outcomes.

    Again, I am making a moral point about hypocisy. That seems to be missed by you.

    Here is another analogy, is it moral and not hypocritical to espouse anti-global warming policy while living in a 28,000 square foot house?

    • #68 by James Farmer on July 9, 2009 - 12:44 pm

      brew:

      I am starting to think that you are just plain bitter, and nothing that is said here or elsewhere is going to change that. Your arguments wander from comment to comment, the only common denominator being your bitterness toward those who have what you apparently do not have.

      PS. I thought your comment about Obama Kool Aid drinkers was really kind of cute. Did you think of that one by yourself?

  44. #69 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 1:08 pm

    My common denominator is pointing out hypocrisy. Your common denominator is slavish cult of personality despite empirical evidence.

    For the record, I am quite grateful for the outstanding education I received on the taxpayers dime. k-12 public, bachelors public (at a public institution ranked above many Ivy League schools), year-long fellowship to study at a well known european university largely underwritten by the good taxpayers of California. Then grad school at a private university on my own dime. So I have nothing to complain about personally.

    I find the argument of “well we did it even though we were poor so you can do it” to be pretty funny considering that is normally the cartoonish portrayal of conservatives. You know, the mocked notion of pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps. The left always points out that lots of people don’t have boots in the first place and they need plenty of government largess to level the playing field, to mix metaphors.

    Just admit the hyporisy of the Kennedys being pro clean energy policy but fighting a wind farm near their yacht club, or John Edwards’ 28,000 square foot compound with the carbon footprint of a small town, or the Obama’s living in Chicago and sending their kids to private school and then naming the Chicago Superintendant of Schools to be Sec of Education (he is good enough for America and for Chicago, but for not my kids), or the Obama kids now at Sidwell Friends with classmates currently there on vouchers who will have to leave school when the Dems kill the DC voucher program.

    PS No I did not think up Kool Aid by myself.

    • #70 by James Farmer on July 9, 2009 - 1:24 pm

      brew:

      If your common denominator were to point out hypocrisy, I find it interesting that you are fixated only on a handful of democrats and not republicans. Indeed, the names Sanford, Craig, Ensign, Gingrich, Foley and Vitter are just a few of the more notable scumbags of late, yet in your zealous campaign against supposed hypocrisy, those names never once appear in your rants.

      No, I think partisan bitterness still drives your commentary, and not some lofty goal of revealing hypocrisy.

  45. #71 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 3:07 pm

    Absolutely! Like I said, I am not a slave to personalities. I would rather discuss ideas than argue who is the bigger scumbucket. Those guys are scumbuckets for their fidelity issues. But I thought the Dems argued passionately per Slick Willie that “personal lives don’t matter”. Oh well, I guess you forgot that.

    Someone who advocates higher taxes for me, but cheats on their own taxes actually affects me. Someone who wags on about families and then cheats on his wife doesn’t affect me. My examples were all policy hypocrites, not personal hypocrites.

    • #72 by James Farmer on July 9, 2009 - 3:50 pm

      I think the repuglican examples exhibit both policy and personal hypocrites. One thing that separates Clinton from the likes of Vitter and Sanford, et al., is Clinton never made “morals” and “family values” into a campaign platform. We all knew what we were getting with Clinton. He was a great president in many respects and fell short in others – like telling the truth about his personal life. But he was far from a hypocrite the likes of Vitter and Sanford, who made “morals” and “family values” policy matters – hence policy hypocrites in much the same way you argue that tax cheaters are.

  46. #73 by Brewski on July 9, 2009 - 8:25 pm

    Actually, Clinton did use the term “family values” in his campaining. That was his genius, co-opting conservative ideas and principles and making them seem palatable to everone. His major accomplishments were ideas that at the tume were mostly GOP ideas such as welfare reform and NAFTA. I heard Clinton speak at a lunch in the Silicon Valley in 1990 and he was all about lowering the capital gaines tax rate. Other policies that are scorned by the left today as being anti-gay like “dont ask dont tell” were Clinton policies. History has a way of changing in people’s minds. Funny what people forget or remember differently.

    Again, someone who raises my taxes and cheats on his taxes affects me directly since he really did raise my taxes. Someone who blabbers about family values and beds some floozy doesn’t affect me directly.

  47. #74 by Glenden Brown on July 10, 2009 - 9:04 am

    Yeah speaking of remembering – DADT was forced on Clinton by Congress – he did not initiate it. Same with DOMA.

  48. #75 by Brewski on July 10, 2009 - 11:26 am

    Sort of the way Congress forced spending restraint on Clinton post-1994.

  49. #76 by cav on July 10, 2009 - 12:41 pm

    Veering back to the Palin topic, BlueinColorado wonders If a political grifter promises an adolescent lout that he’ll be “taken care of” if he cleans himself up and holds hands with said grifter’s pregnant daughter for the cameras, and said pregnant daughter kicks said lout out of governor’s mansion, is said grifter obligated to take care of said lout?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: