Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Intellectual Affairs

Palintology

November 18, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Important as it was, the campaign of Barack Obama was not the only history-making element of the 2008 presidential election. With Sarah Palin, we crossed another epochal divide. The boundary between reality television and American politics (already somewhat weakened by the continuous "American Idol" plebiscite) finally collapsed.

Her campaign's basic formula was familiar: members of an ordinary middle-class family turn into instantly recognizable national celebrities while competing for valuable prizes.

But like any contestant at this late stage of an already decadent genre, Palin seemed much less conscious of the stakes of the game (power) than in how it let her broadcast her own sense of herself.

At that level she could not lose – the ballot box notwithstanding. I’m not sure what Sarah Palin’s favorite work of postmodern theory might be (all of them, probably) but she seems to take her lead from Jean Baudrillard’s Seduction. Other political figures use the media as part of what JB calls “production.” That is, they generate signs and images meant to create an effect within politics. For the Baudrillardian “seducer,” by contrast, the power to create fascination is its own reward.

Watching Palin respond to questions about her book Going Rogue (or not respond to them, often enough) is, from this perspective, no laughing matter. She grows ever more comfortable talking about herself. If no more capable of simulating knowledge of public issues, she is getting her story straight, more or less. And this matters. For now she does not have to be accurate, just coherent. She is consolidating her presence, her "brand." Teams of professional ideologists can feed Palin her lines later.

Is this too cynical? I fear it may not be cynical enough. For it assumes that Palin will eventually be integrated into her party’s apparatus and turned into a mouthpiece of old-school Republican electoral politics -- a basic platform of tax cuts for the rich and unregulated handgun ownership for everybody else.

That is not the only possible outcome, however. Someone with Palin’s developing command of the arts of media seduction -- and whose knack on that score is largely a matter of her performative maverickiness -- has the potential to change the rules of the game.

The editors of a new collection of essays called Going Rouge – a punning title that belies its basic seriousness – recognize that in Palin we may have something more than a new celebrity. “No one speaks of McCainism or Doleism,” write Richard Kim and Betsy Reed in their introduction, “but Palinism signals not just a political position but a political style, a whole way of doing politics.”

The volume itself is the product of a whole new way of doing serious nonfiction. It is the first title from OR Books, which has a staff, so far, of two people. One of them is Colin Robinson, who roughly this time last year lost his job as an editor at Simon and Schuster. He tells me that OR now has two offices. One is the coffee shop where he and his partner John Oakes (co-founder of independent publisher Four Walls Eight Windows) work in the morning. The other is the bar they go to at night.

When we talked earlier this year, Robinson described his idea for a new kind of trade publishing. The usual approach is to print an enormous number of copies of a title to get an economy of scale, then give large discounts to chain bookstores – leaving almost no money to promote it. For serious nonfiction, this was a miserable system. Any money for advertising tended to go to publicize, say, The Stephen King Cookbook or suchlike. (Palin's autobiography is an example of a book enjoying just such heavy promotion.)

His plan, Robinson said, would be to publish a few titles that he thought were worthwhile, making them available as e-books and print-on-demand paperbacks -- and then concentrate on advertising them online, among other ways via video. So far you have to buy Going Rouge directly from the publisher (it sold about 4,000 copies before its official publication date on November 16) but it will be available for order from bookstores next month.

Most of the chapters are reprints from magazines such as The New Yorker, The New Republic, and The Nation; a few first appeared on Web sites. The list of contributors is a Who’s Who of left-leaning journalists and commentators. Max Blumenthal, Juan Cole. Naomi Klein, Rick Perlstein, and Katha Pollitt, among others. There are a few critical evaluations of Palin by her fellow Republicans, including one by a conservative columnist who suggests that she makes George W. Bush “sound like Cicero.” The editors also reprint a number of interviews with and public statements by Palin herself – among them, selections from her Twitter and Facebook writings.

A celebration, then, it is not. But Going Rouge does represent an acknowledgment of Palin’s importance, ambiguous though the precise nature of that importance may be. It cannot be reduced to her short-term plans. She remains circumspect about them, for now anyway. But she is busy demonstrating a strong intuitive grasp of how mass media can be used – among other things, to change the subject.

An example is the item Palin posted on Facebook in early August: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

This was fantasy. But it was effective fantasy. To borrow again from Baudrillard, it seduced -- abolishing reality and replacing it with a delirious facsimile.

The editors of Going Rouge give Palin credit for the rhetorical power generated by her words, and perhaps also by her canny use of the social-networking venue: “With remarkable economy of prose, Palin cast health care reform as an assault on the country, put a face on its supposed victims (her baby Trig), coined the expression ‘death panel’ (linking it directly to Obama), raised the specter of euthanasia in the service of a state-run economy, and rallied the troops around a fight against ‘evil.’ In short, she personalized, popularized, and polarized the debate. Never mind that Democratic health care reform bills merely funded optional end-of-life consultations that had heretofore been almost universally acknowledged as a good. (Indeed, Palin herself once championed them in Alaska.)”

Well, consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of tiny minds. Sarah Palin is playing the political game on a much grander scale -- with rules she may be rewriting as she goes.

With a first printing of 1.5 million copies of her book, I don’t know that the intervention of an upstart press can pose much of a challenge. But OR Books deserves credit for trying. Someone has to speak up for reality from time to time. Otherwise it will just disappear.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Palintology

  • Posted by Heartland CC. Professor on November 18, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • No surprise here. Another man from an elite university trashing a woman who threatens him. This shows young women trying to go to a community college in a flyover state that your professors think you have no future and secretly scorns you, your families and your values. The nasty piece of work by the Nation provides the snark..maybe you can go on a cruise with the snobby cultural elites that contributed to their book of mean-spirited essays and trash Sarah. You all are so predictable.

  • Bashing Palin
  • Posted by Cora B. on November 18, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • It seems that Palin is doing what the Obamalites have been doing -- abolishing reality and replacing it with something else.

    The author of this whine-on doesn't seem to like someone (especially a woman) using his party's politics as well as they do.

    Geez, do you think there might be people out there who are tired of the dishonesty that is drowning our country?

  • Oh no you don't, "Palintology" is on the mark accurate
  • Posted by Paul Rutter on November 18, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • I beg to differ with heartland CC.... I myself am a product early on of community college coursework too. I'd have to agree with the column's author. Palin scares me, and the thought that she might have been a snipers bullet away from the most powerful job in the world??
    We need to recognize the truths here, and studying Palintology helps do this.
    Don't be snookered into the populist anti-east coast bit. My community college was pretty far from the east... the Leeward Community College on Oahu while I was a mechanic in the Navy serving on submarines.

  • Amazing
  • Posted by Adam Kotsko , Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion at Kalamazoo College on November 18, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Can anyone detect the irony in the first comment in this thread?

  • Bring on the Trolls!
  • Posted by Cranky old Prof on November 18, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Hey Scott! Congratulations! You got the tory trolls to react. They must search the web very every morning on their assigned word strings, looking for any site that mentions them in a way contrary to prescription. Then they make the standard "I'm rubber you're glue" move. Very dull, until you see it repeated over and over on everything from political blogs to sports blogs to... IHE. Then it becomes a fascinating phenomenon again. In wonder where they get their training? It must look persuasive to someone, but from here it just looks like reruns. Tally ho (you nasty, snobby, elite, cappuccino-swilling, hors-d'oeuvre-gorfing tradition-bashing misogynist, you)! :-)

  • Posted by Not a Palin Fan on November 18, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • I am not a Palin fan, but where was Scott when it came to debunking the distortions and untruths in Obama's autobiographies? Does truth only matter for one's political opponents? And what on earth does this have to do with academia? I can read a political blog if I want to know someone's take on this stuff.

  • Posted by Barbara Fister on November 18, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Who'd a thunk that Scott was a caviar-eating anti-feminist? What a revelation.

  • Controversy matters - not truth
  • Posted by T-bone on November 18, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • I agree that Palin's use of the media has been interesting to watch. The media, when receiving high ratings, seems all to happy to fan the flames of controversy while ignoring the fact-checking role that should be the primary role of our news agencies. Palin's Facebook item is a key example of this unfortunate trend.

  • Posted by Heartland CC Professor on November 18, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • The Nation magazine is always pushing cruises where the elite go to meet and greet while they put down the working class like Sarah Palin and her followers. Scott's pushing of the knickerbocker elite's POV means he is trolling for an invite on the Nation cruise to Guatemala. Maybe they will use their royalties from their anti-Sarah book to help pay Al Gore for carbon off-sets.
    http://www.nationcruise.com/

  • Response to Heartland CC. Professor
  • Posted by Just a Boy on November 18, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • Heartland CC. Professor, you do know that Palin was discovered by the Republican king(or queen)-makers on just such a crusie as you describe. Be careful about buying in to the crafted image of Palin as just a good-ol-American.

  • Posted by Heartland Professor on November 18, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • Not having any cruise terminals within 1000 miles I am so confused. You mean the GOP went on a Nation tour to Alaska and realized they had a woman governor?
    I thought the Nation ladies hate Sarah Palin. They also disliked Hillary Clinton. And wasn't it their own Randy Rhodes who called both Sen. Clinton and the Dem VP of yore--[G. Ferrarro] a couple of ladies of the evening? [actually the terminology was cruder than that].
    I think it is that the Nation just doesn't think any woman is good enough so naturally they would issue a snarky anti-woman book the day Sarah Palin publishes her book and then get a Nation cruiser wannabe to push the Nation's bile on the IHE website.

  • The National Review's annual cruise...
  • Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman at University of California, Irvine on November 18, 2009 at 1:45pm EST
  • ...even <a href="http://www.nrcruise.com/">has a website</a>. Really, the internet's not that difficult.

  • Double standard?
  • Posted by Jack Olson on November 18, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • Now that Governor Palin has published a book of memoirs, Scott McLemee accuses her of being all form and no substance because "left-leaning" authors said so in publications like The New Republic, The Nation, and the New York Times. And yet, right-wing authors have been saying the same thing for quite a while in publications like National Review, The American Spectator, and the Washington Times, about another politician-author, President Obama. I don't recall McLemee repeating their views, only the attacks on Governor Palin.

    Maybe it's amnesia, but I can't recall McLemee repeating any of the criticism of Secretary Clinton's "Living History", or of Mrs. Clinton herself, of which there has been a great deal. Heaven knows, "Unfit for Command" was a scathing attack on Senator Kerry, but McLemee didn't repeat any of it. If criticism of unsuccessful Vice-Presidential candidates is a subject for "Inside Higher Education", why overlook Senator Lieberman and his book? Few people have as good a reason to criticize a losing Vice-Presidential candidate as Elizabeth Edwards does, but McLemee didn't quote anything about her husband from her book, "Resilience."

    Double standards of judgement are always intellectually suspect, but in contemporary American academics political correctness outweighs intellectual honesty every time. It sure did this time.

  • More foolishness about Palin
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University on November 18, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
  • The author of this column compares Sarah Palin to the instant celebrities of American idol or reality TV. He further states

    "Her campaign's basic formula was familiar: members of an ordinary middle class family turn into instantly recognizable celebrities while competing for valuable prizes."

    That is absurd. Sarah Palin had a career of 16 years in public life, most of it in elective office. She was a mayor and a governor as well as a city councilor and a member of Alaska's oil and gas commission.

    You can agree with her views or not and you can find her appealing or not, but it is an outright lie to pretend that she was simply an ordinary citizen plucked out of a private life or that her campaign portrayed her that way.

    Her entire claim to being qualified for the office of vice president was based on her 16 years of experiences in government at the local and state level in Alaska. She never said she deserved people's votes because whe was "just plain folks" but because she had spent years in public office trying to make government responsive to people's needs rather than serving the interests of politicians.

    It is fair game to criticize her view of government or to dispute her contributions but it is dishonest to say that her public life was made up which the first two paragraphs of Scott McLemee's article imply.

    As for the health care bill, Palin did not invent the idea that it would reduce medicare costs by 500 billion dollars. That is Obama's figure. Since end of life care is driving a lot of the run-away cost of health care, if the government is going to pay for the increases in health care coverage by reducing care for the elderly, they are clearly going to have to make unpleasant choices.

    These choices may be justified. But if a government ethics panel is going to be set up to decide policies about what procedures should and should not be covered for the elderly, they will be making life and death decisions.

    This is clearly what she meant by talking about death panels. She never claimed there was something called a "death panel" in the actual bill. She was simply pointing out that if the government takes over health care, then life and death decisions over care would be partially in the hands of the government rather than solely a decision between patient and physician. Obviously she was speaking hyperbolically in order to make a point.

    There is a vitriolic character to much of the criticism of Palin. It seems way out of proportion to anything she has done in the past or anything she stands to do in the future.

    This article seems like one more reflexive piece of Palin bashing. It's misleading and what is worse, it detracts from political discourse rather than enhancing it.

  • Palintology
  • Posted by katalina , writer at n/a on November 18, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • I thought the article terrific, and don't get the anti-cc and feminine arguments. The "boundary" between reality television and American politics has indeed been breeched or crossed, and not for the first time. When Barbara Walters interviews Sarah Palin on the "book," surely this cannot mean more than appearing on FACEBOOK and can either of these examples not resemble either Wm. Randolph Hearst or other pages from the past when "journalism" ran stories to sell copy? I think the really good points made here - the references to Baillard (sp) and to the former editor at Simon and Schuster, Colin Robinson, and his points are academic, and further should be relevant to non-academics. Yes, Wm. Kristol and Fred Barnes took a cruise for the NATION, had dinner w/then-guv Sarah, swooned over her over swordfish or some other fish steaks, and we know the rest. Her "rise" to power is indeed of great concern to this country, I think, and the questions about her credentials should be asked, over and over.

  • Posted by DLS on November 18, 2009 at 4:00pm EST
  • It appears that Mr. Olson has confused having standards with "double standards."

    If the hysterical right doesn't like people mocking their idiotic leaders, they should stop following idiots. Whining about bias simply avoids the point that Palin's own mouth has revealed her as a low-grade moron, part of new a class of opinutainment celebrities who offer the same old rhetoric without the burden of actually governing and having to show results.

  • Posted by Heartland CC Professor on November 18, 2009 at 6:30pm EST
  • I guess it is easier to belittle people in Grand Rapids who might actually like Sarah Palin than to engage them. All that is "hysterical" is expressing solidarity and growing up as working class-- therefore by your definition "a moron.". It seems any disagreement with the elite brilliant men on this website elicits spitty remarks like DLS.
    I hope you all get invites to the next Nation cruise. You can all sit around, act superior and toast Sarah Palin's idiocy with your Merlot and caviar.I know you would like regular everyday people to just fall down and imbibe your wisdom, but a few whose opinions differ might not be morons. I know you just despise the working classes and this exchange shows it.

  • Posted by AEW on November 18, 2009 at 9:00pm EST
  • In a way, I am grateful for the existence of Sarah Palin, as she provides a failsafe method for detecting any person discussing politics in bad faith. There is simply no excuse for her. In the past year and a half, the woman has provided ample evidence not only that she is unfit for public office, but is also, frankly, an idiot. It's important to make the distinction here. David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer: these are people with whom I may disagree with 99% of the time, and who may make occasional lapses in logical reasoning, but they are not idiots. Sarah Palin is just an idiot. At every turn since her entry into the national spotlight, she has done nothing but further cement this fact. Her sole post-election hope, looking forward towards 2012, was her governorship, and she tossed that one away in a frothy, incoherent rage. The burden, then, is quite heavy on anyone looking to toss around the "elite coastal liberal" nonsense to prove what worth as a public figure Palin actually has. I've yet to see it anywhere, and I certainly don't see it in these comments.

  • What motivates some of these comments?
  • Posted by David Hobby , Mathematics Professor at SUNY on November 19, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • About half of these comments seemed to be trying to attack anybody who attacked Sarah Palin. This seems to be a half-way academic venue--can't we do better? I don't think that her actions leave much doubt that she's more interested in style than substance. That seems to be the thesis of the book. If anyone would like to explain how she actually does have substantiative positions, please do so.

  • Left Leaning?
  • Posted by Bernie on November 19, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • Anyone who believes that Naomi Klein is "left leaning" cannot be relied upon for objectivity.

  • I heartily agree, Professor Hobby
  • Posted by Michael Pelletier on November 19, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • I'd love to see if a critic of Palin can get through an entire paragraph without using the word "moron," or "idiot," or any related term from that particular ad-hominem lexicon. You make a good start.

    The Democrats in Alaska undoubtedly found her to be "substantive" when she vigorously took on and with the help of the FBI all but dismantled the self-dealing Republican "Corrupt Bastards Caucus" in Alaska:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp

    Remember the arrest of Senator Ted Stevens? That even made the news here in New Hampshire, probably because Stevens eventually went on to become only the fifth sitting US Senator ever convicted by a jury. Palin was governor at the time.

    The verdict was eventually set aside thanks to the efforts of Attorney General Eric Holder - do you seriously think we have a two-party system? Corrupt Bastards take care of their own, Republican or Democrat.

    There's eleven other convictions listed on this Wikipedia page about the federal corruption probe in Alaska:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_political_corruption_probe

    Maybe this is why Senator McCain doesn't like her either.

  • Cruising to Alaska
  • Posted by coastal guardian on November 19, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • It is not like those of us fortunate enough to live on the coasts actually take cruise ships. I understand that you can see Alaska from a cruise ship. To the contrary, rubes rolling down from the hinterlands marvel at the wonders of the big cities and feel fulfilled serving time on a floating hotel before they pack their petards back to whatever dusty, wind blown flat place they call home.

    People used to laugh at Reagan back in 1976, sure that he'd never win the nomination. But Reagan did serve as governor for a real state, one with cruise ship terminals, for two full terms. And before his mind began to all tear up on him, Reagan was functionally conversant in matters of the day.

    What Reagan did that Palin did not, other than not quit, was to practice the politics of addition and multiplication, to our dismay, constructing an enormous tent that offered political cover for all sorts of mischief, the kind of which we're economically hung over for now.

    Palin, on the other hand is an ultra rightist, if such things exist, the mirror image of an ultra leftist, which means that we're going to get to watch her whittle her way down to the bare nub of the conservative true believers.

    But like the unwed father of her daughter's child, Palin is a big tease, winkin' but refusin' to show the full political monty, just like Levi Johnston, and laughin' all the way to the bank.

  • Posted by AEW on November 19, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • What nonsense. She "vigorously took on" the Corrupt Bastards? The very link you cite claims she was "lucky" to time her run for governor as the investigation (which was launched in 2004) was already at a head. And again, the WS link you cite is full of the cynical, masturbatory, style-over-substance strategizing that McLemee and the Rouge book deplore.

    I understand your desire for civility, but at times its important to call things for what they are. The public record is full of uninformed, xenophobic, nativist, ignorant, and plain laughable statements from the woman. Spread over a lifetime, they'd be enough to doom any other figure to shame, but she's managed to express them in just over a year's time.

    It's the responsibility of all intelligent, rational people, regardless of their political stripe, to call this for what it is: pandering, marketing, seduction, etc. Beef about The Nation cruise (and again, the irony of even invoking a cruise with regard to Palin is too rich) has absolutely nothing to do with her.

  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on November 19, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • I think the model of rapid engagement and publishing on display here is quite interesting. I'd like to know if there are academic topics -- rather than high punditry -- which might benefit from this kind of model. I suppose the peer review process makes it more difficult, but "best of" collections of already published journal articles could be done without dilution of the process.

  • Where Do You Get These Idiots?
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on November 19, 2009 at 5:30pm EST
  • I frequently read the comments to a News' article or a Views' essay in InsideHigherEd and get to one that causes me to scratch my head and ask, “Where did that come from ?”

    An example is Michael Pelletier’s “I'd love to see if a critic of Palin can get through an entire paragraph without using the word ‘moron,’ or ‘idiot,’ or any related term from that particular ad-hominem lexicon.”

    I noticed that DLS did refer to her as a “low-grade moron,” but he used “idiot” more generally. Knowing DLS as I do, I’m guessing he does indeed think Ms. Palin is an idiot, so I’ll give Professor Pelletier the benefit of the doubt and tag that one on DLS too.

    Here’s my data analysis ...

    No apparent political bias = 9 posts

    No bias' paragraphs using “moron” or “idiot” = 0

    Opponents of Palin = 9 posts (18 paragraphs)

    Opponents' paragraphs with “moron” or “idiot” = 2

    Fans of Palin = 6 posts (26 paragraphs)

    Fans' paragraphs with “moron” or “idiot” = 4

    And, as long as we’re talking about idiots, don’t you find Heartland CC Prof’s remark,
    “I know you just despise the working classes and this exchange shows it” to be just a little bit strange. If I’m not mistaken, that line of reasoning goes ...

    1. Sarah Palin is working class.

    2. You think Sarah Palin is unfit to be Vice President of the United States.

    3. Ergo, you despise the working class.

    Hmmm ... could that be a modus oopsdelogicus argument?

  • Palin
  • Posted by DFS on November 22, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • Let's see. When Sarah Palin was tapped as the vice-presidential nominee, she had already been a governor and a mayor.

    I think that alone gave her infinitely more executive experience than Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or John McCain had at that time.

    Which part of my statement is factually false? I state this without recalling any such mayoral or gubernatorial experience by Mr. Biden, but I am confidant that Senator McCain had none, and that Mr. Obama was definitely without any past record of accountability other than voting Present.

    Just wondering.

  • Hoax
  • Posted by Polly Andrews on November 24, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • I am a woman. I am a 30 plus year resident of Alaska. I am non-partisan and vote for the best candidate of any party. Mrs. Palin gave $1,200 to every Alaskan in 2007. That translates into $6000 for a family of five. She BOUGHT her popularity. She used her charm and pageant walk (by the way, she doesn't say she came in second place), to woo voters. The gas pipeline is going nowhere, like her bridge to nowhere. Her resume is a hoax. We are glad she left Alaska. I wish I could say, America can have her, but I am an American first. I pray to God that this woman is exposed for the sake of our country (& the planet.) (Mrs. Palin thinks she is the only one who is anointed by God, but God loves everyone, not just her.)

  • Palin
  • Posted by Polly Andrews on November 24, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • In answer to your question. Her aides and the legislature helped her while she was Governor. When she was Mayor, she was almost recalled, and the city had to hire a manager. The town of Wasilla had a population less than the size of any of America's urban high schools when she was elected (5,000), and our whole state's population is less than any urban city (630,000). She left Wasilla 22 million in debt. If she has executive experience, her grade is an "F". She never had a passport until she was VP. Wasilla is the meth-capital of Alaska. During her watch as Governor almost 200 elderly people died because the didn't get timely service. The list goes on. And if you are inclined you can do the research. Thank-you.

  • Thank you, Polly Andrews
  • Posted by DFS on November 24, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • Especially for your second comment. That one was refreshingly free of the standard lines like "She's stupid, she's dangerous, are you kidding," etc. At last some points never discusses before. If what you say is true about Palin, these alone would have sunk her even faster.

    I wonder why all of the immediate vitriol, when "facts" would have sufficed?

  • Palinanity is more like it.
  • Posted by Ralphinjersey on November 30, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • Given a choice, I'd rather have government bureaucrats making calls on whether I can receive coverage that my doctor recommends than insurance company bureaucrats who get rewarded for denying claims.

  • Ralph
  • Posted by DFS on December 1, 2009 at 2:30pm EST
  • You need to understand bureaucratic layering. From the government, that's one more layer.
    The fewer, the better.

  • Knee jerks
  • Posted by Just Wondering on December 2, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • Why are we reviewing a book that is aimed at discrediting a person instead of reading the book the person wrote? Did any of you actually, objectively, read Sarah Palin's book on Sarah Palin? I did. I would consider myself a moron if I bashed someone without understanding the person from their own words. Try it. Then judge it.

  • Way to go, Just Wondering!
  • Posted by DFS on December 4, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • I tried to say that previously, but IHE didn't let it pass.
    I think my denied comment was centered around something like: I look forward to IHE's discussion about Going Rogue, instead of Going Rouge.
    Oh, well, good for you!