Palin's children were a huge issue in the campaign, not because she "used them as props", but because the existence of Trig Palin was a grave threat to the worldview of the leadership of the Democratic party and its most entrenched supporters.

The delusion continues.
Badger | 07.09.09 - 12:44 pm | #

I'm not sure such expensive litigation would follow her to the White House. My understanding (I'm no expert) was that the expenses she was forced to take on in defending herself resulted from particular Alaska state laws that gave such litigious power to her opponents. I don't know that such suits can likewise be easily levelled against a VP or P.
Adam D | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 12:58 pm | #

I am not sure she is out of the running for the presidency. The reality is that people who are unemployed can do OK. Running for president is a full time job. It is OK to hold a Washington job or be governor of a conveniently located state because you can breeze in for a vote every so often. But running a national campaign while constantly returning to Alaska would not be that practical.

We will see if she is still serious about running. I would not rule her out. Experience does not really count for much as an issue. Bush and Obama were both said to lack experience. McCain, Kerry, and Gore both had lots. So what?
Randy | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 1:28 pm | #

"The delusion continues."

Yes, indeed-y. And that delusion is that Trig Palin's existence had *nothing* to do with the firestorm of hatred directed at Sarah Palin.
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 1:31 pm | #

Overall a good post. Unfortunately, there was a bit of a misstatement. Politicians’ kids are scrutinized in the sense of being in the spotlight. But it has been taboo to actually attack them - especially if young. When Amy Carter was made fun of, critics pounced (and the jokes about her were tame by comparison). And when Chelsea Clinton went to college, the MSM spent weeks ahead of time insisting that she was off limits (how many sordid gossip stories do any of us remember coming from her college days?) . I have a feeling that Palin, and maybe McCain, imagined similar treatment would be given to Sarah and her kids. It wasn't. And as the attacks and insults got nastier, and were more or less allowed to stand, it taught the Left a valuable lesson. Not only can you attack and destroy your political opponents, but you can attack and destroy their kids. And it will work. After all, any politician knows their own life can be shredded today. Palin’s example has taught, at least those who are socially conservative, that their family and even their children are now fair game as well. And it will continue because Palin dropping out is one step closer to what her opponents were dreaming of, and you just don’t abandon a tactic that worked so well.
Dave G. | 07.09.09 - 1:32 pm | #

Oh, and barring unforeseen circumstances, Palin's national political career is over.

That said, I will concede that Biden's gaffetastic tenure as the Naval Observatory's Wackiest Resident Ever confirms the warning lefties gave me that if I voted for McCain, we'd have a moron as Veep.
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 1:33 pm | #

Mark,

It's goofy to suggest that because Palin resigned as AK governor that she would have done the same thing, for essentially the same reasons, if she had become VP.

Adam is correct, the onslaught of ethics inquiries/attacks on Palin were made possible in part by Alaska's transparency laws. She apparently looked at the money AK was spending to fight these spurious charges (don't forget they have all been thrown out), the amount she and her family were PERSONALLY spending, the amount of time she had left in office, what she had already accomplished (the pipeline etc.) and made some decisions that may or may not come back to haunt her. I think she wanted to give her Lt. gov. a good shot at establishing himself in the office and being elected next year. None of this sounds stupid or rash to me, but as I said, we'll see.

I think there's a lot of wisdom in what Mary Matalin said in an NRO symposium: "Does Sarah Palin have a future in politics? Should she? Yes and yes. But before we conduct the political proctology of Governor Palin, conservatives need to take a deep breath and consider the ramifications of our naval-gazing and infighting.

The essence of modern conservatism — and its source of strength — has been the vigilant and rigorous reform and renewal of flagging institutional governance, based on balancing maximum individual liberty with social order. That message was the catalyst for policy and political progress. To their detriment, Republicans have fallen into the Information Age’s false premise that the messenger is the message. Such a mindset is tailor-made for liberals, who have perfected the politics of personal destruction and have erected an unprecedented infrastructure for mauling conservative messengers.

Too many Republicans go weak-kneed in the face of chattering-class criticism of personalities that don’t conform to a clichéd, insular ideal of urbanity — which, not incidentally, never includes conservative Americans. Rather than defend the true superstars of message-coherence and -delivery, such as Rush Limbaugh, they jump on the trendy totalitarian bandwagon in the absurd belief that they will either be let into the club or spared its wrath.

As we have been saying for decades, elections have consequences, and we are now experiencing the scariest consequence of an election in decades. This president is reordering, at warp speed, the relationship between lawmakers and citizens; he is reshaping the role and scope of a constitutional order two centuries in the making.

We need to quit looking for a white knight or queen mother for a messenger and instead double down on the message of principled, reform-minded, constitutional governance. We should measure the records and vision of all conservative contenders against that template. We should hold conservative officeholders to its promise. And we should never allow those who seek the demise of conservatism, and the consequent erosion of our unique freedom, to determine the fate of our candidates."

What I find frustrating is not the critcisms of Palin but rather the blinders many people seem to be wearing regarding the serious damage Obama has done in his short time in office. As Matalin says, Obama is reshaping the role and scope of a constitutional system two centuries in the making.

I wish more people realized that.

I am frustrated with those who throw their hands up and say things like, "see why I voted third party?" or "See why I didn't vote at all?"

For what it's worth, I'm a center right independent and registered Democrat.
CV | 07.09.09 - 1:54 pm | #

Yes, indeed-y. And that delusion is that Trig Palin's existence had *nothing* to do with the firestorm of hatred directed at Sarah Palin.
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 1:31 pm |

Trig's existence was an obsession among the right. I'm not sure how much effort I should expend arguing with the irrational though. People's devotion to having 5 kids and even a disabled child making that person worthy and faultless is approaching 9/11 truther territory.
Badger | 07.09.09 - 2:42 pm | #

People's devotion to having 5 kids and even a disabled child making that person worthy and faultless is approaching 9/11 truther territory.

Yep. That's exactly what I said: Palin having a disabled child made her worthy and faultless.

Thank you for confirming that you don't have hayfever.
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 3:08 pm | #

People's devotion to having 5 kids and even a disabled child making that person worthy and faultless is approaching 9/11 truther territory.

Strawman alert. I've never met anyone who thought having 5 children, including a disabled one, made Palin "worthy" of VP. Admirable? Sure. But there are many things that made her unready for the big leagues.

Is Palin worship a problem? Yes, especially since many of her followers are blind to her problems. But don't blame it on a "devotion to having 5 kids," as if there's anything even wrong with that.
Andy | 07.09.09 - 3:10 pm | #

The delusion continues.

This is what I love about this blog: I can simultaneously be a delusional Palin-worshipper *and* a worthless pro-abortion sack of shit who hates her guts.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 3:13 pm | #

I've never met anyone who thought having 5 children, including a disabled one, made Palin "worthy" of VP.

Follow the homeschooling mother circles and become enlightened.
Badger | 07.09.09 - 3:52 pm | #

"Follow the homeschooling mother circles and become enlightened."

That's nice. It would be interesting if, say, you actually tried to address people in *this* comment box.

As opposed to waving vaguely at unspecified other folks, but any subject-changing port in a storm, I suppose.
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 4:10 pm | #

Badger:

"Follow the homeschooling mother circles and become enlightened."

I'm not part of such circles, and yet you quoted me at the beginning of this thread and indicted me as delusional. Then you went on to claim that my quote somehow meant I believed Palin's motherhood qualified her to be Veep, which is, in fact, the polar opposite of what I wrote. So are you lying, unable to read, or merely continuing the Vox Nova tradition of torquing all conversations into standard issue Dem boilerplate?

"I'm sorry. I shouldn't have called you delusional" would be good to say right about now.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 4:22 pm | #

I didn't call you delusional. Now go have your fun without me. I recognize where I'm not wanted.
Badger | 07.09.09 - 4:41 pm | #

You quote me, write "The delusion continues" and then deny that you called me delusional.

So I take it you opt for "lying".
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 4:59 pm | #

When danger reared its ugly head Sir Badger bravely turned and fled...
Dale Price | 07.09.09 - 5:01 pm | #

I think it is obvious that I was calling the thought delusional, given that I was quoting a specific passage and all.

Dale,
You've made clear your affection for Sarah. I've nothing really to add.
Badger | 07.09.09 - 5:05 pm | #

Yes. But seeing as how it was *my* thought, I don't think it's far-fetched to say you were calling me delusional. And then following it up with a bunch of rubbish about how it meant the exact opposite of what I thought.

Well, anything rather than admit you were wrong. Enjoy the Feast of the ASCII Martyrs as you exile yourself.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 5:09 pm | #

Mark,

I don't think you are being fair at all. I assume we can all agree Badger's writings so far have been assinine, semi-literate ramblings? But we're not calling Badger assinine or semi-literate or rambling, just all those words he took the time to type. They're semi-literate, the words!

Not Badger. No, never!
Franklin Jennings | 07.09.09 - 6:21 pm | #

You know I thought she got a bum rapped, esp given how much of a buffoon Biden was and continues to be. BUT I gotta say that I never read, heard or saw anything nasty said about her kids (aside from Letterman who then said he was sorry) Of course, I only listen to NPR, I do not watch the "news" shows on TV and this is the only blog I visit. (because you are such a charming, funny and yet still a reasonable bright fellow Mark!)

anyway, I really think her problem was simply not being quick enough on her feet to answer questions in an at least kind of smart sounding way (she could have said what I just wrote!). She lacked the gravitas for being the VP and her folksy image quickly lost its appeal. But, McCain lost because his ideas weren't enough of a radical break with W. IF he'd of run a real Teddy Roosevelt type of campaign, he may have won. Instead, he fumbled around the country talking up some jackass idiot plumber wanna be and then flew back to DC in order to accomplish, uh, nothing.

She didn't lose it for him, but she really didn't help him much either.

disclaimer: I voted for Obama, but was really undecided until early October.
Dale | 07.09.09 - 9:24 pm | #

One more worth reading on Palin. David Kahane has really nailed it:

http://article.nationalreview.co...MzhlNjU=& w=MQ==

OK one more. His earlier take on Palin was even better:

http:// article.nationalreview.co...mE3MmFiOWE4ZjQ=
CV | 07.09.09 - 9:34 pm | #

Dale,

I would suggest that the places you didn't read or listen to were where the bulk of the nasties were coming from. Not that everyone sat around and called the kids names on CNN. But many said nothing about it when others did call them names and insult them (as opposed to some on those same channels who burst vessels in anger when Chelsea was criticized while campaigning for Hillary - Chelsea who by now is a college graduate adult). So it wasn't just who was calling her kids names, but who was sitting there and suddenly saying it was no big deal that they did.
Dave G. | 07.09.09 - 11:55 pm | #

What frosts my cookies about this whole thing isn't exactly so much that the media has it out for Palin, it's that they have it out for any woman who dares step out of line with their mainstream portrait of womyn, complete with first abortion parties while furthering their careers.

Any normal woman with a heart for the unborn, or, God forbid, parented a kid who did anything immoral - combined with the sin of being conservative - will be confirmed as a witch and burned at the stake of public media along with her family.

The media public flogging of Palin shows that the powers that be will do anything to stop anyone resembling a normal human being with some semblance of morality and sanity from ever being able to make any decisions in this country.
Jarnor | 07.10.09 - 3:57 am | #

the nat'l review link posted above, however, is utterly stupid. Yup, lets attack Tina Fey for doing her job (ie making fun of politicians!) and add her to the list of "media elites" who hate Palin.

Also what really cracks me up is this idea that somehow the media is, 1) only a left wing group of snobs (uh, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Rush, Sean, etc come to mind) and 2) that somehow conservatives are innocent of this sort of thing. I mean, how many times did we hear about Obama being a Muslim, or how many times did Anne Coulter remind us that his middle name was Hussein? If that isn't mean spirited, irrelevant bull shit, then I don't know what is. This is not to say that attack Palin is okay, but let us all get real here and quit with making her out to be some sort of martyr for conservatism. She couldn't do any interview in a coherent manner, she had no foreign policy experience (after McCain made such a fuss about it), her executive experience was very limited and she seemed clueless about terribly important things (like what's the Bush doctrine?).
Dale | 07.10.09 - 1:18 pm | #

Dale,

You didn't really just criticise Palin for her lack of executive experience, did you? I mean, of the four major candidates for President and Vice President, she was the only one with any executive experience. In fact, you decided executive experience was completely unnecessary, according to your own vote. and now you criticise her for lacking it?

Since the rest of your twaddle was a fine collection of strawmen, I'll not bother. But that one clause was a real hoot!!!
Franklin Jennings | 07.10.09 - 4:58 pm | #

Hey, Dale. What IS the "Bush Doctrine"? Be exact please. We have cameras recording.
Jarnor | 07.10.09 - 5:36 pm | #

Dale voted for Obama - nuff said.
Derek | 07.10.09 - 10:32 pm | #

Mark, thanks for responding to at least part of what I said......but you're REALLY wrong about something here and you REALLY need to be corrected.

I have not spoken to one single Palin supporter who harbors the wild notion that Sarah Palin is going to run for President for 2012.

Got it? That is the basic fundamental myth upon which the rest of your arguments seem to be based.

If you want to know what is going on with Sarah Palin, you can bank on what is said at Conservatives4Palin.com (they've said they don't care whether or not she runs for President) or Tammy Bruce, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs or perhaps Ann Coulter -- and of course, anything else that Sarah Palin says herself. If you listen to anyone else, take it with a huge grain of salt.

Sarah Palin is not "running for President". She is leading a non-partisan conservative movement to endorse candidates from any party or no party who are willing to oppose Obama's radical agenda. Some districts do not have viable GOP candidates, for instance, and she will support whichever candidate, regardless of party, is willing to oppose this madness we are under right now.

I apologize for my anger but, Mark, if you don't know what you're talking about, you really shouldn't be blogging on it at all. You are basing your criticisms of her on an erroneous speculation.

Sarah Palin declared her independence on July 3. There was an article in the Washington Times today that at least got the story partly right, but this is not in any way a presidential run.

Now, if you can understand that she isn't running for president, you can understand the resignation, in the context of her record of resigning from the oil and gas commission, in a completely different light, now can't you? You say of that "the point is that she resigned". Well, my friend, she was hailed as a heroine for resigning from the commission.

Funny how two identical acts cause one to be hailed as a heroine in the first case and vilified as a partisan nut-job in the second.

I forgive you for your ignorance on all of this because most of the experts in the Beltway know far less than you do about this. I'll give you credit for being better at all of this than they are.

Blessings.

P.S. Leila says she understands all this and hopes you will, too.

Love you lots.
Lisa Graas | Homepage | 07.12.09 - 3:34 am | #

Mark wrote:
"Not one of which would go away if she'd been elected Veep. Instead, all the accusations would follow her to DC and multiply."

The money was one factor but the primary factor was 6,000 hours of staff time. Not only that, these complaints were Alinsky-inspired straight out of the Rules for Radicals, one rule of which is to go after the "enemy" (not "opponent" but "enemy") with his own laws. Palin championed that ethics law and that is what they used against her because there is a loophole which allows the complainant to speak publicly about the complaint without fear of repercussions........so because the complainants had this loophole (which is not included in the ethics rules for legislators in Alaska, so they are spared this garbage) it became a media circus. The complainants made it a media free-for-all. AK legislators have protection of confidentiality but the governor does not. The constant ethics complaints at a rate of more than one per month since the '08 election, crippled the staff with hours of work. It was that WASTE that caused her to resign, not the pressure.

You may disagree with her on whether or not she should have stepped down because 80% of her day was fighting ethics complaints that were frivolous in nature. That would be something worthy of debate. But to say that this was because of pressure is FALSE, Mark. It was because Palin's administration was virtually crippled by the hours of work to protect the Office itself.

Disagree with that if you want to because that is the reason.

Secondly, conservatives who believe in a Republic believe that the power is with the people, not GOV'T. She truly believes she has more power now than she did as governor to stop the horrible thing we all want to be stopped. Disagree with her on that, if you like. It's a valid debate.

You are talking about things that simply have no basis in fact, though.
Lisa Graas | Homepage | 07.12.09 - 3:59 am | #