Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’
“I love that smell of the emissions.”
Sometimes you don’t have to say anything, because Motorcycle Mama–and motor mouth–Sarah says it all herself.
Is Sarah Palin “A Face in the Crowd?”
More than a half-century ago–in 1957, to be exact–America was treated to (and in some quarters alarmed by) one of the finest films ever to receive commercial release in the U.S.
I’m talking about A Face in the Crowd, adapted by the great Budd Schulberg from his short story “Your Arkansas Traveler,” and produced and directed by Elia Kazan, and starring Andy Griffith, Walter Matthau and Patricia Neal.
Here’s the IMDB plot summary:
An Arkansas hobo becomes an overnight media sensation. But as he becomes drunk with fame and power, will he ever be exposed as the fraud he has become?
I first saw A Face in the Crowd as a teenager. It made such an impression that more than fifty years later, as I was considering whether to write a book about Sarah Palin, I watched it again. In the context of Palin, it resonated even longer and louder the second time around.
Whether or not you plan to see Sarah’s million-dollar epic to be released in June, I urge you to watch A Face in the Crowd.
Once you do, I suspect you won’t find it quite so easy to ridicule Sarah Palin as an ignorant moron who can’t possibly harm us.
Sarah Palin: Media scrutiny next year? “I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it.” UPDATE//: Ivan Moore in Anchorage Press says “absolutely yes, Sarah will run”
Oh, man, I was just on my way to bed when I saw Sarah-sites overdosing on her Hannity interview.
So I watched it. I figure that since I’m still writing my last chapter, I get paid to stay up late and do such things.
Some of it was (unintentionally) funny, such as:
I think one of my problems in this whole process is I don’t live for that game of the pundincy [sic] of the opining and speculating on who’s doing what …What I live for is fighting for family and faith and freedom in this country.
But I won’t go to sleep smiling over her later words:
I’m still not ready to make an announcement….I’m still seriously considering it and praying about it…I want to make sure that we have a candidate out there with Tea Party principles.
Perhaps scariest of all was Sarah’s Freudian slip at the start.
I realize that the Wasilla Assembly of God taught Sarah that Sigmund Freud was Sigmund Fraud, and that she’s believed it ever since, but that doesn’t immunize her from what the rest of us might call a Freudian slip. Speaking of Gingrich’s recent stumble out of the gate, Hannity asked her, in regard to 2012, “Is there going to be a different standard?” Meaning: will candidates be held accountable for their words? Sarah said:
There’s gotta be the preparation on all the candidates’ parts for those gotchas. That’s what the lamestream media is known for nowadays is the gotcha, trip-up questions, and I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it. (emphasis added.)
Why would someone who did not intend to seek the Republican nomination say “I”?
If she weren’t planning to run–notwithstanding how she makes everything about herself–wouldn’t she have said “they?”
Dr. Fraud, where are you now that we need you?
I, for one, am going to need someone to interpret the dreams/nightmares I’m about to have as I go to bed with Sarah’s mantra in my head:
“I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it.”
At least she’s got God helping her. I’m all alone down here, trying to muddle through with nothing more than rationality, a modicum of decency, and whatever I learn from my reporting.
Anybody know a good Jungian shrink? Because here’s what I’m afraid I’ll be seeing tonight:
UPDATE:
Alaskan pollster Ivan Moore says in Anchorage Press that it’s “Palin’s Perfect Storm.”
Here’s his lede:
Us pollsters don’t like making predictions. No really… we don’t. We can measure things at any given point in time, but we can’t, no matter how much others may want us to, see into the future. Today, however, I’m going to make an exception, because I’m absolutely certain of what I’m going to predict.
No ands, ifs or buts about it, Sarah Palin is going to run for president.
And so to bed.
Walt Monegan tells more truth about Sarah Palin
In an interview with Alex De Marban of Alaska Newspapers, Inc., which publishes six regional weeklies, Walt Monegan, Alaska’s Director of Public Safety, whom Sarah fired in 2008 because he refused to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, from the Alaska State Troopers, recounts the history of his interactions with her.
His bottom line: “If she would have said, ‘Walt, I don’t like your hair. You’re outta here,’ that would have made more sense.”
Sarah Palin fired Walt Monegan in an act of petulance and vindictiveness because he would not commit a wrong she insisted on.
I write in considerable detail about the Palin family campaign–in which Todd played a leading role–to have Mike Wooten fired from his state trooper job because he and Sarah’s sister, Molly, were in the midst of a bitter divorce.
Sarah’s abuses of power in her extended campaign to have Wooten’s head served to her and Todd on a silver platter created the scandal known as “Troopergate.”
As I write in THE ROGUE,
The Troopergate imbroglio is worth examining in detail because Sarah’s actions, and those of her husband on her behalf, expose so clearly the vengeful, obsessive nature of the person who lurks behind the mask of sexiness and chirpy insouciance.
And I’m not referring to Walt Monegan.
He doesn’t wear masks.
I also write:
Sarah said she’d fired Monegan because he’d displayed a “rogue mentality.” Sarah apparently felt that “going rogue” was acceptable only when she did it herself.
I got to know Walt and his wife, Terry, last summer. There are not two finer people in Alaska.
Over coffee in Eagle River one morning, Walt told me that Sarah “just thought she should be able to do anything she wanted to, and that anybody working for her had an obligation to help…Maybe she hadn’t realized there were limits on her power. Maybe she thought being governor meant she could do anything she wanted to anyone. I loved my job and I’m sorry she took it from me, but I’ve never had a moment’s doubt about what I did.”
Walt Monegan combines intelligence, dedication and integrity to a degree that makes him very special.
Although he grew increasingly disillusioned, he remained loyal to Sarah Palin until she and Todd pressured him to betray his principles: something he would not do.
In her petulance and vengefulness, Sarah deprived the state of Alaska of the services of a remarkable man.
You can read much more about Walt Monegan in THE ROGUE.
Enter THE ROGUE Last Chapter Contest Here…$250 Prize for Winner!
Here’s the best chance for you commenters–and anybody else who has an idea about what the last chapter of my book about Sarah Palin should say–to make a difference.
I’m about to start writing the last chapter of THE ROGUE. It’s due for delivery to my publisher Random House/Crown on June 3.
Tell me, please, what you think I should say, why I should say it, and how I can prove it to an extent that would pass legal vetting.
Trig is not off limits–nothing is off limits–but I’m not going to devote the chapter to showing how Figure A or Figure B proves that Sarah was or was not pregnant with that child. I’ll make my own views on that question clear in THE ROGUE.
So the matter before us today is: if you had five thousand words, more or less, in which you could summarize The Rise and Fall (and Possible Rebirth) of Sarah Palin, how would you use them? What would you say?
Please remember, in THE ROGUE, I am not preaching to the converted: I can’t–nor do I want to–write a final chapter that contains only snark and invective. The first twenty chapters don’t do that, so–despite the fact that I won’t pull punches–I don’t want to leave those who read the finished book with the taste of bile in their mouths.
Let’s put it this way: imagine yourself in a dialogue with a friend who respected your opinions.
You have three or four minutes, without interruption, to explain why Sarah Palin is every bit as bad as you believe her to be, and why she continues to be a danger to the USA.
What would you say? How would you say it?
As I’m working on my last chapter, I’d love to know.
I’d love to know so much, in fact, that I’m offering a $250 prize to whoever gives me the best suggestion about what I should write in the next two weeks–whether it’s a phrase, a sentence, or whether you take five thousand words to express it.
thanks,
Joe
If only Sarah weren’t Sarah, She Coulda Been A Contender//UPDATE: John Podhoretz in Commentary
That’s the thesis propounded by Joshua Green in the June issue of The Atlantic.
The magazine, however, went with the classier title, “The Tragedy of Sarah Palin,” and illustrated the piece with the striking image above of Sarah in full presidential mode.
“But over the past few months, Palin has begun fortifying her profile by visiting foreign countries and delivering speeches that extol her record as governor, especially on energy, as she did in March to an audience of international business leaders in India….She seems to be reintroducing herself.”
Given that I’m presently writing the last chapter of THE ROGUE I’m not going to critique Green’s piece, though I’m sure some will take issue with his conclusion that Sarah was a great governor of Alaska, who accomplished extraordinary things.
I find it interesting that during his week in Alaska Green spoke to the same people I talked to two-and-a-half years ago about Sarah’s accomplishments as governor–Gregg Erickson, Pat Galvin, Hollis French, Les Gara–and came away with conclusions very different from those I reached and published in my 2009 Portfolio cover story.
I will say that I hope Howard Kurtz reads Green’s story. In the current Newsweek, Kurtz writes about the end of the Sarah Palin phenomenon in a piece titled, “Is Sarah Palin Over?”
Kurtz says she’s toast. Green says she just might be a soufflé only starting to rise.
Maybe Andrew Sullivan, formerly of The Atlantic and now with Tina Brown’s Daily Beast-Newsweek behemoth could moderate a Kurtz-Green debate on The Dish.
UPDATE:
Even Commentary compares Sarah to Daryl Strawberry.
Even while pining for what might have been, Podhoretz writes her off. But who will win his heart next?
Or can Sarah lure him back by offering lunch on the concrete block on Lake Lucille, the way she seduced his buddy Bill Kristol over lunch at the governor’s mansion in Juneau?
After 22 Years, My Rebuttal to Janet Malcolm Goes Public
Thanks to the miracles of modern science (i.e. the internet) the 26-page essay I published as an epilogue to the 1989 edition of Fatal Vision, in response to Janet Malcolm’s wrongheaded and factually inaccurate New Yorker attack on my journalistic ethics and me, (later published as a book titled The Journalist and The Murderer) is now available online.
And guess where?
Right here. On this very site where you already are.
As I say in the introduction to the epilogue–I know it’s weird to have an “introduction” to an “epilogue,” but what can I do?–
In 1989, the New Yorker published a two-part article by Janet Malcolm entitled “The Journalist and the Murderer.” In the article, which was published in book form a year later, Malcolm offered her skewed perception of my relationship with Jeffrey MacDonald–the subject of my 1983 book, Fatal Vision–to support her bizarre hypothesis that “Every journalist…knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” So numerous and egregious were Malcolm’s omissions, distortions and outright misstatements of fact that I felt compelled to set the record straight in an epilogue to the updated edition of Fatal Vision that was published in 1989. There is no statute of limitations on truth. Even now, twenty-two years later, Malcolm’s fictions ought not to be accepted uncritically.
What makes this relevant to THE ROGUE is that Jeffrey MacDonald was the first pathologically narcissistic psychopath about whom I ever wrote a book.
Guess who’s the second?
Why Is This Not A Surprise?
The poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to like Sarah.