Palin: Rogue or Rouge?

posted by Betsy Reed on 10/24/2009 @ 3:01pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (126)

Subscribe Now

Failed GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whose new memoir, set to be released on Nov. 17, emphasizes her supposedly "maverick" tendencies with its title Going Rogue, has just dipped her toe into New York State politics. By endorsing a right-wing third party candidate, Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party, in the Nov. 3 special election for the state's 23rd Congressional district seat, she has indeed bucked the party establishment--in order to advance a hard-line social conservative agenda. In the nonsensical Palin universe, that's what "rogue" means: walking in lockstep with the Christian right.

The Republican Party's candidate in the race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and has pledged to support the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act. While Scozzafava has been depicted as a radical leftist in the right-wing blogosphere, in fact she is a centrist with conservative leanings. The net effect of Palin's "rogue" intervention may be to split the conservative vote and help elect the Democrat in the race, Bill Owens, who maintains an edge over the other two candidates in the polls. Still, Hoffman has been gaining momentum, and--in a testament to Palin's enduring appeal to her devoted base--he's been raking in the campaign cash in the wake of her endorsement.

In her Facebook posting announcing her support for Hoffman this past Thursday evening, Palin wrote, "Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a ‘time for choosing.'"

I might not have put it exactly like that, but I agree.

When Palin's book Going Rogue comes out on Nov. 17, we're launching Going Rouge: Sarah Palin--An American Nightmare, a collection of pieces on Palin that I co-edited with Nation senior editor Richard Kim. Despite internet chatter suggesting that we might be trying to dupe unsuspecting hockey moms into buying our anti-Palin book, I think it's pretty clear from the thunderclouds and the subtitle that the cover's a satire. But the book is not a parody: it's a serious look at Palin's record, her policy positions, the meaning of her candidacy for feminism and her future in American politics.

It's also fair to ask who has been practicing the politics of deception here. Palin's entry onto the national stage was a Hollywood-style production, replete with a ready-made storyline, a speech carefully crafted by others and a brand new wardrobe. Many remarked at the time that she seemed more like an actress playing a candidate running for Vice President in a romantic comedy (albeit one who sometimes had trouble remembering her lines) than an actual candidate. And the image, more often than not, contradicted the reality. Given the misleading use of "rogue" in the title of her new book, it seems likely that it will merely offer more of the same.

Our book, by contrast, is reality-based. No ghostwriters or pricey political consultants were employed in its production, just hardworking journalists. Our purpose is to not to deceive but to clarify--to show Palin beneath the gloss. And to give people a choice on Nov. 17.

Comments (126)

Palin is of no significance. Why I can understand wanting to recycle some articles for a book for cash and the novelty value of Palin, she never was and never will be a contender for U.S. President - and you can say the same of any other national elected office.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 3:31pm
REED: "The Republican Party's candidate in the race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and has pledged to support the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act."

I would rather the Dem win than Ms. DS!

No hardcore social conservative myself, I sure don't want anyone who embraces all 3 of the positions as Dede do, to further pollute the GOP!

New Yorkers, back a conservative, that's Hoffman!

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 4:14pm
Palin is of no significance.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 3:31pm

Really? Ask Ms. Reed......ask Richard Kim.......ask Ms. Dede Scozzafava......ask Doug Hoffman,,,,,ask ME!

Come on, raise your game!

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 4:16pm
While I agree that Sarah Palin is incredibly unlikely to gain election to higher office, it would be foolish to overlook the significance of the rightwing nutjob movement more broadly.

In Chris Hedges' "American ts" he uses the term "dominionists" to describe the folks who are largley responsible for the astronomical sales of the Left Behind series of armageddon fiction books. Yes, these folks are a minority of the overall US population and they are not monolithic, but even if we limit the core to perhaps <10% of the pop., if the economy keeps spiralling downward, or we suffer another ist attack etc. then the numbers who are swept up by the mouth-foamers will only swell.

I welcome The Nations useful contribution to countering Palinitis. Less inflammation, more medication is what these folks are in need of.

We should be careful not to be too smug about this situation. Compassion is probably a better reaction than ignoring a potentially e scenario. I only hope our presidential administration understands how serious this could get if they don't deliver some substantive goods.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/24/2009 @ 4:25pm
Correction (again --is it my 'puter or the website?):

In Chris Hedges' "American f@sci$ts"

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/24/2009 @ 4:28pm
one more correction:

"a potentially ex pl osive scenario"

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/24/2009 @ 4:30pm
Betsy Reed wrote: "The Republican Party's candidate in the race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and has pledged to support the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act."

Dede Scozzafava might be accused of opportunism, herself. Suppose she was a Republican candidate for U.S. Representative in Mississippi. Does anyone think her public political stance would be the same?

Posted by MarkOller at 10/24/2009 @ 5:26pm
I think it's brilliant for you to ride on the Palin's coattails; if you get 2% of the profit of Palin's book, "Going Rouge" will be a success. Besides, The Nation will need the cash, to defend against the upcoming defamation suit for publishing "101 People Who Really Are Screwing Up America," by Jack Huberman.

But don't worry; if "Going Rouge" fails to take off, the Van der Heuvel's can simply write another check. That is one filthy rich capitalist family.

Posted by Kryon77 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:50pm
I think it's brilliant for you to ride on the Palin's coattails; if you get 2% of the profit of Palin's book, "Going Rouge" will be a success. Besides, The Nation will need the cash, to defend against the upcoming defamation suit for publishing "101 People Who Really Are Screwing Up America," by Jack Huberman.

But don't worry; if "Going Rouge" fails to take off, the Van der Heuvel's can simply write another check. That is one filthy rich capitalist family.

Posted by Kryon77 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:51pm
I think it's brilliant for you to ride on Palin's coattails; if you get 2% of the profit of Palin's book, "Going Rouge" will be a success. Besides, The Nation will need the cash, to defend against the upcoming defamation suit for publishing "101 People Who Really Are Screwing Up America," by Jack Huberman.

But don't worry; if "Going Rouge" fails to take off, the Van der Heuvel's can simply write another check. That is one filthy rich capitalist family.

Posted by Kryon77 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:53pm
Posted by Kryon77 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:53pm |

Congratulations...you've made one sale.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 5:55pm
carrier's disease is very contagious

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 5:56pm
carrier's disease is very contagious

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 5:56pm
carrier's disease is very contagious

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 5:56pm
damn!

meanwhile,

back at goldman sachs...

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 5:56pm
I'm a little trollish against my friends at the Stalin-supporting Nation magazine, but not a super-troll; apologies for the triple post.

Posted by Kryon77 at 10/24/2009 @ 6:01pm
Ms Reed, when a Democrat runs as a "centrist" do you applaud them also?

When was the last time the Nation didn't complain about centrist or Blue Dog Democrats?

Yet you want Republicans to run candidates that are the antithesis of what the majority of the party believes.

You are a hypocrite-look in the mirror-it's not a pretty picture.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:03pm
Best argument I've seen about a Palin run:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/ palin-will-not-run-for-president-in-12.html

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/24/2009 @ 4:25pm

I watched these interviews with Alan Grayson, and I was struck by this comment:

"Alan: Fox News and their Republican Collaborators are the enemy of America. They're the enemy of anybody who cares about healthcare in this country. The enemy of anybody that cares about educating their children. The enemy of everybody who wants energy independence or anything good for this country. And certainly the enemy of peace. They are the enemy."

Amen. It's time to stop coddling these assholes. antisocialist, Happy, sjchermak, BigPasture, et al are the enemy. Point blank. It's time we start saying it, and it's time we start doing something about it.

http://tinyurl.com/ylzttpt

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09pm
no apologies necessary -- just a reference to poster "citizen_carrier's" constant triple posting.

post on.

"stalin-supporting"? that's inane and cheesy.

how about "oblahma-duped"?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 6:10pm
Amen. It's time to stop coddling these assholes. antisocialist, Happy, sjchermak, BigPasture, et al are the enemy. Point blank. It's time we start saying it, and it's time we start doing something about it.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09

just misguided fools, i say.

THIS GUY [holy fuck, he's nuts -- but he really knows his stuff] knows who the REAL enemy is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-twLAaMD9w

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 6:19pm
http://tinyurl.com/ylzttpt

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09pm

WARREN/GRAYSON '012 Put Some Balls in the Halls!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 6:33pm
Amen. It's time to stop coddling these assholes. antisocialist, Happy, sjchermak, BigPasture, et al are the enemy. Point blank. It's time we start saying it, and it's time we start doing something about it.

http://tinyurl.com/ylzttpt

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09pm

I love this Post-partisan horseshit of a presidency! Bring it on! Let's separate the Kool-aid addicted, like the SRJs', from those that are still salvageable!

Oh, yea! Let the lines be drawn!

BTW, time is the Conservatives' friend....repeat after me!

Time is the Conservatives' friend.

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 6:34pm
Hey, Libs, remember what your Messiah said, when your enemies bring knives, you bring guns........us Cons got lots of guns (about 7~8 myself), so, what will you bring? RPGs, AK-47s, suicide bombers, head-cutting`instruments',...

Just curious.....LOL!

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 6:36pm
Amen. It's time to stop coddling these assholes. antisocialist, Happy, sjchermak, BigPasture, et al are the enemy. Point blank. It's time we start saying it, and it's time we start doing something about it.

http://tinyurl.com/ylzttpt

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09pm

Really SRJ?

So what are you going to do, impose a socialist police state where no opposing opinions may be voiced?

That's your idea of a free nation?

You who state that you dislike govts now want to silence any opposing opinions on how to best run our govt?

Glad to know how you really feel. You have openly declared that you believe conservatives are not people with a different view on solving challenges, but enemies like Al Qaeda.

Will you declare open war or just knock on our doors to arrest us?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:38pm
Really SRJ?.....

Glad to know how you really feel.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:38pm

I genuinely feel sorry for some members of the Left, even a bit for SRJ. They know The Messiah isn't all that smart and plays by rules honed in Chicago but which, are not ready for Prime Time.

All those who deluded themselves into thinking Magic is oh-so-smart, just can't face the hard fact that he is where he is purely due to AA and white liberals' guilt complex. It's too bad the young, naturally gullible and easily Hopey and Changeyed, will pay the price for Boomer Libs' guilt complex with stunted careers and diminished lifetime earnings.

Thank the lord for sparing my two kids who get to ride out this Obama madness! SRJ is going crazy, perhaps on purposely to cope.....pity, pity, pity!

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 6:54pm
Let me do a little test:

"a potentially explosive scenario"

"American Fascists"

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:29pm
Hmmmm. I think it's your computer, "b_kool_66," or maybe it's your network. I hope it's not a NATION-associated censor. It really wouldn't be fair for me to be able to use the e-word and the f-word while you can't.

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:32pm
Will you declare open war or just knock on our doors to arrest us? Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:38pm

I don't interpret that post like you do...

I think SR just wants us all to dramatically pick up the level of discourse. I've made lots of errors in the past, and sarcasm has got me into trouble. But the amount of name calling ad hominem attacks has grown enormously.

Making fun and being sarcastic is NOT ad hominem. Calling someone a puerile asshole IS. There's a fine line there.

My opinion is...if someone is annoying, use the ignore button. Otherwise (everybody), just do your homework and realize, both left and right (CHERMAK?), there are some folks who will never concede one damn point in any debate. Like Mom said, 'Yeah, but...' isn't an answer... it's a defense. Sure, it's annoying, but I'd rather deal with it by using the ignore button.

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 7:38pm
'But don't worry; if "Going Rouge" fails to take off, the Van der Heuvel's can simply write another check. That is one filthy rich capitalist family,' quoth "Kryon77."

Ooooo!

Ooooooo!

I just HATE those class traitors!

Rich people should either fight for their own selfish interest or just SHUT UP, that's what I say!

Do you know what they are? Those class traitors? Why, they're ... FILTHY, that's what!

* satire! * satire! * satire! * satire! * satire! *

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:39pm
Sorry for all the off-topic remarks, but ...

This IS a thread about Sarah Palin, so in keeping with her rhetorical style, we should feel free to change the subject any time we want. And also, too....

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:41pm
Glad to know how you really feel. You have openly declared that you believe conservatives are not people with a different view on solving challenges, but enemies like Al Qaeda.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 6:38pm

so many clichés, so little time....

i think srj has nothing against conservatives.

the problem is HE CAN'T FIND ANY!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 7:48pm
I don't interpret that post like you do...

I think SR just wants us all to dramatically pick up the level of discourse. I've made lots of errors in the past, and sarcasm has got me into trouble. But the amount of name calling ad hominem attacks has grown enormously.

Making fun and being sarcastic is NOT ad hominem. Calling someone a puerile asshole IS. There's a fine line there.

My opinion is...if someone is annoying, use the ignore button. Otherwise (everybody), just do your homework and realize, both left and right (CHERMAK?), there are some folks who will never concede one damn point in any debate. Like Mom said, 'Yeah, but...' isn't an answer... it's a defense. Sure, it's annoying, but I'd rather deal with it by using the ignore button.

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 7:38pm

I'd love to read your explanation how SRJ and Grayson (whom he linked) are calling conservatives the enemy because they want to "pick up the level of discourse"?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 7:49pm
On a more serious note...

Liberals may be happy now that Sarah Palin's support for the Conservative Doug Hoffman presently splits the political right in two, giving the Democrat Bill Owens a better chance to defeat the moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava. But you know we'll be having a different discussion the next time the left is divided between a Democrat and a Green.

The solution is proportional representation. Check out FairVote.org. And campaign finance reform. Check out Change-Congress.org. Finally, check out Helen Rosenthal's NATION article, "The Big Kids Play with Corked Bats."

Our clunky, antiquated, inaccurate, plutocratic electoral system never helps progressives out - except by accident.

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:55pm
I genuinely feel sorry for some members of the Left,

•• i feel sorry for people who voted for an absolute numbskull like palin. oh, that's right you voted for phil gramm 3 FUCKING TIMES

even a bit for SRJ.

•• you would be so lucky as to have srj's fleas.

They know The Messiah isn't all that smart and plays by rules honed in Chicago but which, are not ready for Prime Time.

•• if only mr. oblahma had chicago style balls.

All those who deluded themselves into thinking Magic is oh-so-smart,

•• he's a helluva lot smarter than you.

just can't face the hard fact that he is where he is purely due to AA and white liberals' guilt complex.

•• DEMS NIGGAHS SURE IS DUM!

It's too bad the young, naturally gullible and easily Hopey and Changeyed, will pay the price for Boomer Libs' guilt complex with stunted careers and diminished lifetime earnings.

•• oh, cut the crap. YOU KNOW mr. obama is just the latest in a LONG LINE of greed enablers, most of whom you voted for. YOU are more to blame than mr. obama.

Thank the lord for sparing my two kids who get to ride out this Obama madness!

•• too bad you fucked america over for them.

SRJ is going crazy, perhaps on purposely to cope.....pity, pity, pity!

•• srj is a saint compared to your racist trash. show some respect.

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 6:54pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 7:58pm
Making fun and being sarcastic is NOT ad hominem. Calling someone a puerile asshole IS. There's a fine line there.

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 7:38pm

it's not ad hominem if its true.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:00pm
I think SR just wants us all to dramatically pick up the level of discourse.

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 7:38pm

my lord, this thread is about sarah palin.

physics tells you it can only move in a downward direction.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:02pm
Sorry for all the off-topic remarks, but ... This IS a thread about Sarah Palin, so in keeping with her rhetorical style, we should feel free to change the subject any time we want. And also, too....

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:41pm

far to logically constructed. this is much better:

"Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners, is just too impacting. We had to step in there. I do not like the idea, though, of taxpayers being used to bail out these corporations. Today, with AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But, first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:09pm
my lord, this thread is about sarah palin.

physics tells you it can only move in a downward direction.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:02pm

I assumed that's what draws you here? We can always count on you to take the level of intellectual content down substantially

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 8:09pm
The solution is proportional representation. Check out FairVote.org. And campaign finance reform.

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:55pm

banning t.v. ads would help.

"but it's free speeeeeeeeeeeeech!"

o.k. great. i can't wait to air my ads for dildos during the next episode of barney.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:12pm
larry,

god sent me here to save you.

don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:13pm
Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 7:38pm

You know, I haven't mentioned it, but I've really started to enjoy your posts.

Thanks also for the digest version of antisocialist. It's funny that his statist streak runs so wide that he cannot imagine any way to treat an enemy than to declare open war or arresting people. Maybe he should spend a bit more time reading his Bible, starting with Matthew 5:43-48, followed by Matthew 21:12.

It is time people like antisocialist realize that they are destroying this country like the money changers were turning the house of prayer into a den of robbers. When you act like a money changer, then you should get thrown out of the temple - and Jesus didn't bother to call for the Roman Centurions to do his dirty work for him. And I'm sure the money changers never recieved a greater act of love than being tossed out on their bum that day.

One would think that if anyone would understand tough love, it would be Pastor Larry. But, instead it's non-stop nonsense about the true meaning of the Koran, the Constitution, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or whatever other document he's got his hands on this week. It's all crap.

anti-socialist, you don't stand for alternative ideas. Your ideas are a contradiction. Limited government providing an unlimited capability for war and unlimited support for Israel. You're ideas have been de facto American foreign policy for decades and they are a failure by any objective criteria. And instead of honestly addressing these problems, you lay down cover fire in the form of lame personal attacks, like calling people "leftist".

It's called integrity. It's called concern for truth. And, it's a bit time that you stood up and showed some of both or receive the appropriate response, which is to be ignored.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:16pm
oh, yeah.

ficheye and the snowball are two great additions to our unhappy little community.

welcome to the jungle,

we've got fun and games.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:20pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:20pm

Yeah, snowball too!

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 6:19pm

I could only watch 2 minutes, and then my Jerry Springer threshold kicked in. Was it just me, or did you think...probably a relative of BigPasture?

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:34pm
which is to be ignored.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:16pm

actually, all of us are ignored. free speech is meaningless is when no one listens.

meanwhile, back at goldman sachs...

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:36pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:34pm

oh, no.

this guy really knows his stuff. ('cept for a poorly disguised anti-obama racist slur about half way through)

all the stats and what they add up to are correct.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 8:42pm
•• srj is a saint compared to your racist trash. show some respect.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 7:58pm

Here and there, new racists are being formed, no doubt.....no, they won't exhibit the classic signs of racism....but lots of people, many who voted for him, now know Obama isn't qualified nor have the class to be a POTUS.....he's pretty much.......the most racist President in at least 30 years. And dumb!

The folks who voted for him for absolution, have been relieved of their guilt.....now, hopefully, they will not make the same mistake for some future AA Messiah.

Posted by Happy at 10/24/2009 @ 8:59pm
back on ignore, happy.

wake up.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 9:03pm
another leftist appointment by mr. obama:

"Pizarchik has served as the director of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Mining and Reclamation since 2002. The office, a division of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, oversees mining permits and the enforcement of environmental rules related to mining and waste disposal. And residents of Pennsylvania mining areas are so unhappy with his performance that they're organizing to oppose the nomination. Under Pizarchik's watch, the bureau developed new policies for the "beneficial use" of coal ash, including allowing it to be dumped in old surface mining sites--meaning, essentially, that power plant waste could be left in unlined pits around the state."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 9:19pm
oh, lord:

"Pacientes de EU viajan clandestinos a Cuba para recibir atención médica

Notimex Publicado: 24/10/2009 12:59

La Habana. Médicos cubanos revelaron que enfermos de Estados Unidos acuden a la isla de manera clandestina para tratarse por diversos padecimientos o para tener una segunda opinión médica a pesar del embargo económico al que ha sido sometido el país caribeño por medio siglo.

Los pacientes buscan someterse a tratamientos a los que no tienen acceso en su país, "y de hecho a algunos los tratamos (.) con muchas dificultades", dijo el director del Instituto de Hematología e Inmunología de Cuba, José Manuel Ballester este sábado.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 9:30pm
I'd love to read your explanation how SRJ and Grayson (whom he linked) are calling conservatives the enemy because they want to "pick up the level of discourse"? Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 7:49pm

I'll take the wise course and defer since I haven't really formed an opinion about their opinion ;-)

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 9:53pm
This IS a thread about Sarah Palin, so in keeping with her rhetorical style, we should feel free to change the subject any time we want. And also, too.... Posted by JakobFabian at 10/24/2009 @ 7:41pm

OK then, I'll change it back... I went to Wasilla this summer and I SAW her freaking house from someone's front porch... we've said almost all there is to say about that aerial wolf killing mama san who's trying for a fat contract advertising the new salad shooter, but like the balloon boy (sorry Frosty) this is a topic that never dies, the gift that keeps on giving.

She didn't write her new book. She had a handy sycophant sit there while she was speaking in tongues, someone who almost singlehandedly wrote the thing, sitting there asking her if that was what she REALLY meant to say, which is hard to tell since her head is filled with some kind of expanding styrofoam insulation. I can't wait until 2012 because CHERMAK will be so disappointed to find that she's not gonna be the president, or resident, or set a precedent, or even be on the ticket. The only ticket she'll have is for her dry cleaning.

Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 10:21pm
aaaarrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

aren't bubbles enough? [:+]

anyhoo,

even glenn beck sees the obvious:

"John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama"

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 10:24pm
I want so badly to purchase "Rouge" upon its release, however, in the back of my mind I'm thinking that if there is any possibility of an eventual lawsuit filed on behalf of Palin by opportunistic lawyers, which undoubtedly there will be plenty of, and if any settlement in such a suit favors Palin, I will be in essence contributing to HER benefit by purchasing "Going Rouge" and I REFUSE to give that woman even a penny!

Posted by LizHB at 10/24/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 6:19pm |

He really hates that printer...does he think it's Ben's printing press?

Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:29pm
i bet chermak wonders if palin is a "rug".

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 11:30pm
Posted by ficheye at 10/24/2009 @ 9:53pm

I think Alan pretty much covers it in the linked article. Before you have reasonable discourse, you need to slap down the bully or cut them out of the conversation.

"Alan: Sure, what you do with a bully is you confront a bully and then the bully backs down....

Alan: Sure. It's either that or ignore them like the rest of America does."

It's funny that people like antisocialist cry about fair play when they are called the enemy, but phrases like "Why do you hate America?" are so frequently used on the right as to be a cliche.

Don't like being on the recieving end boys? Well, I feel so bad about that I can almost feel a tiny tear starting to well up. Why don't you all go running to your mommas and get some therapy before you do any more damage to this country?

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 11:38pm
"Why do you hate America?" are so frequently used on the right as to be a cliche.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 11:38pm

more leftist claptrap.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2009 @ 12:09am
does he think it's Ben's printing press?

Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:29pm

hmmm,

seems he's quantitatively easing the printer towards the floor.

kinda like ben and the dollar..

this guy's got better aim, though.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2009 @ 12:13am
Before you have reasonable discourse, you need to slap down the bully or cut them out of the conversation.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 11:38pm

You're probably right. But some of these guys are fun because of the one sidedness of their views. I'm all for raising the discourse, but what would saturday night be without a little CHERMAK?

Gawd, I'd miss the screamin'!

Now, I know that borders on ad hominem, but I'm not perfect. There's some fun to be had here.

antisocialist, on the other hand... is a fascinating man. I know that many folks have a problem with this fellow, but consider this... he is a libertarian, a man of g-d, he's familiar with the machinations of war on a personal hands-on basis, and he is well studied. He supports his point of view with documentation, such as it is. In short, he is EXACTLY the kind of opponent that, in the arena of debate, progressives, liberals, and those who don't identify themselves as conservatives need to be able to take on in a cogent, methodical way in order to make a strong and well reasoned argument. Even though you may never win a concession from anti... it is still a valuable exercise to shrug off frustration - to a point - and practice a dialogue that hones your ability to make a point... even if you haven't read the Koran ;-)

As a jazz vocalist, I once had a piano player named Bob. I wanted to do a song called 'Undecided'. I wanted to do it the way Ella did it with the Chick Webb orchestra. Bob didn't want to do it. When I told him that Ella did it that way, he groused "Well, I guess if you've got documentation..."

That's about all I ever expect to get from any of these folks who are conservatives with a black and white perspective. And if we get that, we're doing pretty damn good.

Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 01:44am
I'd love to read your explanation how SRJ and Grayson (whom he linked) are calling conservatives the enemy because they want to "pick up the level of discourse"?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 7:49pm

#2. After rereading a lot of this thread I have to put forth an addendum on the discourse topic.

There isn't one progressive blogger here who has managed to perfect their nastiness to the extent that HAPPY, CHERMAK, BigPasture, and pontificus have. There's sarcasm and snarkyness, but that's not the same. Their level of derision and total lack of respect should offend anyone, especially a man of g-d. There is a new fascination with Grayson, but his rhetoric is now just barely on par with what Rush, Mark Levin, Billy Cunningham and others have been flinging against the walls of civility and reason for a long time. In short he's been in training, taught by the best... or worst, take your pick. But this is only ONE guy who has matched that kind of delivery and, boy howdy, the effect is amazing. Wrong or right (or left or right), it was only a matter of time before there was a perfect reflection of the diatribes delivered by 'those on the right'.

Mark Levin, in particular, is a blight on the landscape. He's is entirely focused on this socialist thing, calling the current administration 'fascistic' and many other things as well. He can't seem to make up his mind. I've listened to him for hours, trying to get a feel for his particular affliction, but he hates while accusing others of hate... in a hateful way. It's a total mystery to me how he came to be. And why he plays James Brown in place of his usual martial music. He's not funky in any way. Then you've got Sean Hannity playing Stevie Wonder to the same effect. An identity crisis is at work here.

Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 02:26am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2009 @ 12:13am |

I couldn't help but be reminded of the interlude in 'Office Space'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfCYzJAgwrw

Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 07:06am
I think the folks marketing this Rogue business have vastly overestimated the number of Palin supporters who can actually read, but perhaps that doesn't matter as long as they fork over the greenbacks.

Maybe it's a pop-up or audio book (we've got big print for those that don't read too well and pictures for those that don't read at all).

Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 07:10am
I wouldn't waste my time reading her book. She is nothing but a media whore period!

Posted by sheila60 at 10/25/2009 @ 08:03am
Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 01:44am

Good comments.

I used to agree with you regarding antisocialist. I then ran into an argument, i.e., there is no support for a standing army in the Constitution, that made it clear that he isn't intellectually honest. You cannot argue that there was a standing army at the time of ratification of the Constitution or that the Founders or the state legislators thought they were a good idea. If you are an originalist and someone that favors a strong "defense" broadly defined, this is a serious point that needs to be addressed. He dismisses the point based on quotes of a few founders that raising an army during peacetime may occasionally necessary - particularly prior to invasion or by saying that the Army existed in any meaningful sense at the time of ratification. Both of these points are either false or irrelevant.

This made it clear to me that antisocialist is essentially sjchermak, except just a little smarter. sjchermak will tell you straight out that everything is opinion. antisocialist, at least, has the sense to pretend he is reasonable and make some kind of effort to make his case look logical - even his aberrant ideas about Islam, his framing of abortion as child murder, and so on.

I've engaged him in dialogue for a long time. I've even learned a few useful things from him, such as the fact that a significant portion of the population (~43%) don't pay income taxes and there is no evidence that the CIA ever funded Bin Laden. But, the bottom line is that antisocialist will ignore major problems in his thinking whether they be practical issues like how can we have a small, limited federal government while maintaining the capability to fight a war anywhere in the world or theoretical issues like originalism and the army.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 01:44am

In sum, antisocialist may provide an interesting exercise, but he's dishonest - both with himself and to you. He wounds the truth.

Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 02:26am

And this is another interesting point.

"There is a new fascination with Grayson, but his rhetoric is now just barely on par with what Rush, Mark Levin, Billy Cunningham and others have been flinging against the walls of civility and reason for a long time."

And this is another interesting point. Grayson is barely reaching the rhetoric of his Republican counter-parts in Congress, much less getting anywhere near the level of Rush's and Beck's racism, Coulter's homophobia, etc. He's calming calling out the behavior for what it is, whether that is Acorn or FOX.

"I've listened to him for hours, trying to get a feel for his particular affliction, but he hates while accusing others of hate... in a hateful way."

The easiest way to be dishonest is to accuse others of what you are doing.

"An identity crisis is at work here."

Most definitely. You know the funny thing is I have a lot of sympathy for certain strains of conservative thought. If Ron Paul were to run against Obama, I'd probably go with the Old Right politician over the moderate conservative Democrat. But, Republicans don't have a vision of the world and what they want to accomplish that is consistent with what we have learned and experienced since Ronald Reagan. They have forgotten that Reagan himself talked about small government but did more than anyone since Roosevelt to make it bigger. There are some hard truths that need to be confronted, yet they are spending all their time flinging poop and think that makes them attractive. It's destructive.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 09:30am
**News Flash**

Buffoon Girl to admit hoax!

Says she wrote book "for the show."

Dick Cheney & Ann Coulter, as surrogate parents, are expected to be arrested by Thought Police, but sources say, "don't worry about that."

Book expected to become best seller & efforts are underway to find translators for the world audience, but Palin's demand for security clearances for same has presented problems.

Posted by Sorelish at 10/25/2009 @ 11:16am
Posted by Sorelish at 10/25/2009 @ 11:16am |

ROTFLMAO. Nice.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 11:33am
Palin has faced numerous ethics investigations, between the conduct of herself and her husband. Something from those could hit the fan yet -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

Posted by reg373 at 10/25/2009 @ 11:46am
"Will you declare open war or just knock on our doors to arrest us?"

---antiSOCIAL, 10/24@6:38pm

[Knock, knock]

ANTISOCIAL (moaning & panting over a now damp copy of EBONY magazine): (aaaaa) W-w-whooo's there?

AGENT ACORN: It's ACORN. We have a few questions for you.

ANTISOCIAL: Well, you can't come in! I'm ... I'm talking to the Lord G*d right now!

[ACORN rams the door down in a dynamic entry, shouting pro-Obama slogans in Arabic, Russia and German!]

AGENT ACORN (pulls out fearsome notepad and pen): As I said, we have some questions for you. Please answer the following:

1. How do you square your self-proclaimed "libertarianism" with your support for every hardcore Statist policy implimented by George W. Male-CheerLeading-Fag, including the elective invasion and occupatioin of Iraq on false premises?

2. Explain the correspondance between this dyed-in-the wool liberatarianism for which you endlessly praise yourself with your charctrization of drunken statist madman Joseph McCarthy as a "great American hero" (your own, and 100% banal, words).

3. Why do you, a self-appointed arbiter of Gawd's Will on Earth, consistently dismiss the truth of the undeniable violent streak in current conserva-Fecal-Slop like Timothy McVeigh or abusive religionist freaks like Phillip Garrido? And continue to do so when you have yourself have illustrated the rightwing/violent coupling yourself when you threatened to kill a fellow Nation poster, Glenn C Lemon?

4. Got climate change?

5. When will you give up the ghost and finally admit that your fellow travellor BigNAMBLA is the epitome of what the fecal and feral right now regards as an "intellectual" -- a natural waste product of the abysmal and disgustingly low standards that the right has set for itself?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/25/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 11:33am

Thanks snowy. Say, I too wonder if this will be a pop- up book, but suspect that to be true only for those "who pulled the lever" in voting booths in the last presidential election.

Posted by Sorelish at 10/25/2009 @ 11:54am
The Republican Party's candidate in the race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and has pledged to support the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act.

There is NO Republican running! The choice is between TWO Demoncrats! That is blatantly obvious or someone is lieing about their platform?

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:05pm
Sarah Palin was strictly a nod to the religious right who were not that wild about John McCain. McCain wasn't as rabid as they would like to have seen run. Sarah Palin was. If he hadn't put a hard core conservative on the ticket there would have been a fight on the floor of the Republican Convention. So the ones who are going to buy her book are the religious nuts on the far right. They pretty well run the party these days which is why a lot of us just simply quit voting Republican. The party is so infested with these people it is hard for anyone but a lunatic to make it. Even the moderate ones eventually wind up having to cater to the hard right fringe if they want to win. I am considering buying the other one 'Going Rouge'.

Posted by ganddw42 at 10/25/2009 @ 12:06pm
ganddw42, Palins pandoras box and all, thanks McShame.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/25/2009 @ 12:26pm
Amen. It's time to stop coddling these assholes. antisocialist, Happy, sjchermak, BigPasture, et al are the enemy. Point blank. It's time we start saying it, and it's time we start doing something about it.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Says the elitist FOOL wallowing in his myopia! Somehow you get a picture of someone sitting in a darkroom with aluminum foil covering the windows desperately seeking women or anyone to share misery with!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:41pm
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/25/2009 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person

Credibility "O"

Intellect "Satan inspired"

Relevance "None"

Just another hater from the depths!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:48pm
Palin for good- Pelosi for evil, two sides of the same coin.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:50pm
Too many of us have a tendency to disregard Palin as the useless drivel that she is, and represents. But some of my relatives--and my in-laws--think she's God's gift to US politics.

So, while I'm not saying this in the same context that Rushie Limbaugh does, but don't misunderestimate her. We had a moron in the White House for 8 years, and there's still a faction that worships the image of the demented, incomprehensible old goat that was in there for 8 years in the 80s. Don't OVERESTIMATE the intelligence of the American voter.

Posted by Parcival at 10/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:16pm 

Absolutely devastating, I have to say, sir. I'll have to disagree with you on the "meaning of documents part" (as you know ; ), but as for the rest of it...very nicely put. I think you highlight some incoherent strands in the current conservative movement; the state is treated as incompetent when it comes to domestic policy, but reigns supreme in the domain of foreign affairs. We read the Bible and take it seriously...except when it talks about loving our neighbors. In fact, we even say that the government is a minister of God...but has no responsibility to love its neighbors or its enemies.

Personally, I'm a bit wary of the government in general. I believe it has the capacity to do great good, but that it also has the capacity both to screw things up and to do great evil. That's why I defend relatively limited government both here AND abroad, and am convinced that we should take decisions to go to war very seriously and make them very carefully and deliberately. No President should be able to take us to war on his own, and in fact, I don't think the Constitution even allows him to. I think debt should be managed a bit more responsibly than I think it is now; pretending that vast expenditures right now don't really matter seems dangerously short-sighted.

How the virtues we elucidate can be confined to individuals and small groups yet be irrelevant to larger communities and even states is beyond me. That said, though, I'm very interested to hear antisocialist's thoughts on the matter.

That said...I have to tip my cap, sir.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 1:12pm
palin is an ignorant, physically attractive milf who learned all the right catch phrases, read all the papers, and appealed to a limited base of hard core know nuthin scary folks.

how someone i once respected (mccain) could have allowed that dangerous moron on his ticket is far, far, beyond me...

truly the cream of the political talent has abandoned the republican party. what sane person who REALLY vetted that woman could have imagined running her as a veep candidate?

amazing...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/25/2009 @ 3:33pm
It's called integrity. It's called concern for truth. And, it's a bit time that you stood up and showed some of both or receive the appropriate response, which is to be ignored.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 8:16pm

you may disagree and dismiss my integrity, but it stands intact, sir.

Ignore away if that is your choosing.

I read your subsequent comments and I find no area of retreat in my defense of a standing army as entirely in keeping with originalism.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

1.You will not see from me the "incompetency argument" as a driving factor against the expansion of US govt. My contention has ALWAYS been one of constitutionality.

2.Nowhere does the NT call govt to be a vessel of ministering G-d's love. This isn't even possible. Because this love is a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a believer. It is Christ revealed to the world through believers who are His body. The NT does direct govt to bear the sword of justice, wherever evil shows itself. Other than that role, there is no discussion in the NT of any role or connection between Christianity and govt.

3. the issue of the inherent authority of president to commit forces to military action without a formal declaration of war remains an issue wherein it seems no area of agreement is possible. I have already shown that the Founders, SCOTUS, the FISA Court, and every president since and including Washington stand in disagreement with you on this issue.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 4:41pm
....what sane person who REALLY vetted that woman could have imagined running her as a veep candidate?

amazing...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/25/2009 @ 3:33pm

NOT as amazing as the INSANE person(s) who REALLY vetted Magic running him as a Presidential candidate!

Posted by Happy at 10/25/2009 @ 4:54pm
Posted by Happy at 10/25/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

lol - i think the electorate vetted him...

what surprises me is that mccain ALLOWED it to happen. it almost seemed like he was tired and didn't feel like doing what he should have done...

a cursory examination of her should have raised some serious red flags. perhaps it WAS all form over substance - use the hot MILF to fight the "magic" charisma bomb?

but that's even worse. if they were willing to pull a stunt like that for something so important...JEEZ! thank god it didn't work.

hell hap...i personally know several solidly republican voting types who either voted obama or didn't vote or threw their vote away on a third party candidate - and i suspect my unrepresentative sampling is not inaccurate.

perhaps with all that's happened NOBODY could have beaten obama...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:06pm
What's all this fear of all things Sarah Palin? Is she not an above average human being who has accomplished much in her life? Is she not entitled to have values? Has she ever accepted a welfare check? I Think not.

I think that liberals and progressives are scared shitless of this incredible human being who is like a breath of fresh air in the stinking world of politics. Why is it that every time someone who is truly decent comes along, the establishment has to try to destroy them?

I've had all that I can stand of Chicago style politicians and the putrid stench that comes from that system.

Michelle couldn't even carry Sarah Palin's water on a basketball court let alone in the world of politics.

You know what, I'm one of the peole who have ordered her book and I can't wait to hear what she has to say. I absolutely do not care whether she runs for office ever again or not but I think it's a good thing to have her out there drawing huge crowds everywhere she goes, just like our current President did on the stump and getting people to listen about her ideas and values.

She has a down home way about her and she connects with the average Joe. She'll be on Oprah on Nov. 17th, hawking her book and getting her message out further. Republicans everywhere, hell, people everywhere will be sitting up and taking notice.

I'm sure there will be more evil comments made about her afterward by small minded people with their own agendas. But it will all roll off Palin's back. She has no time for idiots. She's much stronger now than she ever could have been as Governor of Alaska. The more the left puts her down, the stronger and more popular she gets. It's a long way until 2012 but I think we'll be seeing and hearing a lot more from Sarah Palin. Count on it.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:36pm
I suggest that all independent minded people and all those with conservative buy her book or at least pick it up at the local library and read it. I, as an independent, am open to her perspective and I will be very interested in what she has to say. If we ever needed a fresh viewpoint from a young mind, we need it now.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:39pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

it feels like a sour grape backlash by the faithful against the ever rising tide of non aynrando political thought.

you and she and anybody else who wants can believe anything you want. although i personally can't see her as doing much more than warming the hearts of the lost causer's as they dwindle in numbers and political consequence, but you never know...

one small voice wailing in the wilderness, backed by lots of ideological money can have an impact on things.

that's why if such a person exits and is your enemy - you have to oppose them. for too many years libs or progs or whatever we call non aynrando-ists did not oppose, figuring the system would fix itself, that the average person was more gifted with powers of discretion and relevant political knowledge than they were and would use some of the knowledge of history and economics learned in high school and beyond to see a sweet lie peddling charlatan for what he or she was...

but it does not work that way. big lies vomited up over and over and broadcast over purchased and non-purchased media can indeed fool roughly fifty percent of the voting public until the real world steps in and corrects with results.

and STILL some 30% cling to that silly ideology!

so although i really do not worry about her impact (the other 70% think she's anything from a joke to an idiotic joke)...you never know. gotta oppose...

i'd love to see a comparative fact check between the palin and anti-pain books. aynrandos love to drown you with a bunch of footnotes and sources, just like REAL scholarly output, to make things look legit and respectable. fools lots of fools...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/25/2009 @ 6:05pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

Thanks for this comment, Thrawn. Even though we disagree on many topics (judicial interpretation/originalism, role of nuclear weapons in the world, etc.), I've always deeply respected your concern for the truth and your rational approach to discussion. I only hope that your style becomes more the norm, both in this forum and the Republican party at large because well-thought out, honest conservative perspectives are sorely needed in American discourse.

I'm also curious. How do you respond to the standing army problem, from your originalist perspective? I think there are serious problems from both an intent and textual perspective, so how do you resolve them in the face of the obvious necessity for some form of standing army - given the frontier and the influence of foreign powers in American history?

I, like you, distrust government. I agree with Tolstoy when he states, "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Further, the moral implications of war, the debt being passed on to future generations, and the disregard for sustainable ways of living are so enormous - that I cannot figure out why this doesn't comprise a larger part of our political discussion.

We need to change our whole society, and it really isn't a left versus right issue. It's a question of people that want to continue with the status quo until the wheels fall off and those that think we should try to do something before we pitch headlong into disaster. I'm firmly in the latter camp, and I imagine working with anyone - right or left - that also is working toward the end of positive change.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 7:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 4:41pm 

1) Interesting. So, just to clarify, your argument is not that government isn't competent to do X and Y, but that it's not constitutionally entitled to? If that's the case, you'd have no problem with it if a constitutional amendment were passed, would you?

2) On the contrary, Romans 13:4 is often translated with government being a "minister" of God. Sometimes it's translated "servant." Regardless of the translation...you can't both serve God and ignore what Jesus said were the two most important commandments. Also, read the prophetic texts, and no, they're not confined to theocratic governments.

3) The idea that every President has thought the President gets to commit the US to war is problematic for two reasons. First, it isn't true. Second, it's irrelevant because Presidents will always conceive of their own power as broadly as they can get away with. This isn't necessarily out of greed; sometimes it's out of a sense of duty. Either way, saying "Presidents don't think X is a limit on their power" is a terrible standard for determining what the limits on their power are. FISA has nothing to do with this question because it doesn't involve committing the country to war.

Plus...still no response to the "they accepted another King?" analysis. I also don't think SCOTUS has ever said the President has this inherent authority.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 7:05pm 

Thank you. I agree that the current debate requires voices that are willing to be thorough and reflective, and that's part of why I've so often enjoyed our conversations.

The standing army issue is an interesting one. I haven't done a lot of digging into it, though I think the "raise" armies rhetoric sounds awfully antithetical to a standing army. At the same time, I think it's pretty clear that we really need a standing army. Part of the issue would be what the understanding was, not simply of the writers of the Federalist Papers (because they had very limited circulation at the time), but of the ratifying conventions as a whole. I think there's a fair chance that they didn't want a standing army and didn't think they were ratifying a clause that would permit one.

If that's the case, I think the best answer is to do what proponents of the 13th Amendment and of the ERA did: propose a constitutional amendment to rectify a flaw within the Constitutional design.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 7:37pm
I think that liberals and progressives are scared shitless of this incredible human being who is like a breath of fresh air in the stinking world of politics. Why is it that every time someone who is truly decent comes along, the establishment has to try to destroy them?

Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:36pm

.....................................

Are you serious?

She's a beauty pageant queen.

She's not very smart.

She is a follower of a fundamentalist religion (She no longer attends the church) and she believes in speaking in tongues.

Even if you hate Katie Couric, Palin still didn't name any sources she refers to for current events. It wasn't a 'gotcha' moment... it was a casually asked question that anyone with political aspirations could have easily answered.

She didn't really write her upcoming book. She had a lot of help. Her command of english isn't good enough to write a book unassisted.

Liberals and progressives are not 'the establishment'. Conservatives and the 'corporatocracy' are the establishment.

She quit as governor, not just because of media hype, but also because the people of Alaska felt that she didn't really speak for them. I know plenty of conservative Alaskans. They didn't like her anymore.

Republicans everywhere will take notice... you mean 20% of Americans?

In short, she doesn't come across as very intelligent and there are many reasons to think that she could not handle the role of POTUS. Say what you want about Obama - I have my own issues with him - Palin is not a fairy queen who's going to fix America because she's 'decent'.

Incredible human being? You have to be joking. I'll take it as such.

Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 8:18pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 7:37pm

"If that's the case, I think the best answer is to do what proponents of the 13th Amendment and of the ERA did: propose a constitutional amendment to rectify a flaw within the Constitutional design."

But, by doing so, you would more or less concede that the Army has been unconstitutional for most of the life of the Republic, which raises a number of problems - not the least of which is the validity of originalism itself as an interpretive model (since you acknowledge it doesn't describe the real world).

I can imagine someone like antisocialist raising the valid point: Why didn't the framers themselves propose a Constitutional amendment when it became clear a standing army was necessary because a militia was incapable of addressing the threat of Indian tribes, foreign threats or promoting Westward expansion? I'd suggest that the answer may well be: (1) they thought there was no need because they viewed a Constitution as a rough framework that was filled out by the common law tradition, and (2) they didn't think they could get it passed through the states.

I don't want to get into another back and forth about originalism, but I do think that this poses a really interesting problem that originalists need to think through. It is one I'm going to keep bringing up until someone comes up with a good response.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 8:21pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 8:21pm 

Remember, though, that the amendment argument is completely contingent on the "no standing army" interpretation being the right originalist answer to begin with. If that's not the case, the whole argument goes away. The impact of antisocialist's response might not be that the Framers thought of the Constitution as a rought framework (I think that has some serious issues, as I'll get to in a second), but rather that they understood the powers of Congress to include a standing army.

One quick preempt: the fact that no one follows an idea perfectly doesn't mean that the idea itself isn't right. Does the imperfection of every human being render the ideals of morality meaningless?

Here's why I think the "rough framework" argument runs into serious problems. The implication is presumably that government has powers other than those explicitly delegated to it. Two problems. First, I think this is exactly what the 9th Amendment was meant to forestall. If you looked at the Constitution and saw the powers and Bill of Rights, you might be tempted to conclude that anything not walled off in the Amendments is effectively given to the government. The 9th Amendment, though, says "no, that's not how it works." Second, the standard your interpretation creates is virtually boundless. So what other powers does government have, then? Your only answer can be "those it deems necessary," but that's not an answer any advocate of limited government should be comfortable with.

So what will be the standard, then?

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 8:39pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 8:39pm

"Remember, though, that the amendment argument is completely contingent on the "no standing army" interpretation being the right originalist answer to begin with."

True enough. But, I don't see much that supports an alternative view. It is pretty clear from the text itself and from the discussion during ratification that standing armies aren't part of the original meaning.

If you don't think the rough framework argument applies, then why didn't they pass an amendment when the need for a standing army became apparent? I was offering a possible explanation. Do you have a better one?

As for your preemptive argument, I'd agree. The problem is the situation is more like saying that the Ten Commandments prohibit killing, so therefore, no one kills anyone. If life doesn't work that way, then we need to question the Ten Commandments as a guiding document for behavior based on the empirical evidence.

"Your only answer can be "those it deems necessary..."

I believe the phrase is "necessary and proper". I think it helps to not think about "government" as a single entity - particularly the judicial branch.

As for my preemptive argument, I don't want to operate in a the realm of "shoulds". The law should do a lot of things. The most important question is what does it actually do - the rest is irrelevant.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 9:18pm
What is a nitwit like Dede Scozzafava doing in the Republican Party, or better yet why was she nominated?

Posted by srjenkins: Sorry, but at least Sarah Palin would be able, and "willing" to lead...you know, make a decision...unlike, he whose name must not be spoken in an unfavorable light..

Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 10:18pm
Somehow, I don't think an anti-Palin book will sell well. Well, maybe a few AGW types will buy it, if they can steal enough money. VP Al Gore excepted - he has lots of money, scammed off the gullible.

Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 10:30pm
Plus...still no response to the "they accepted another King?" analysis. I also don't think SCOTUS has ever said the President has this inherent authority.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 7:31pm

1.I would treat it the same way I treat the 16th amendment. It was a terrible move for the country to make, but I cannot stand against it. I am required as a Christian to submit to the authority of govt.

2.I don't know where you find a contradiction in serving G-d and yet not finding any passage of scripture in the NT that even suggests a role for govts in demonstrating Christ's love. Perhaps you can provide an example? And yes, perhaps you overlooked that Christ said we are under a new covenant?

3.Yes, it is true that every president has committed the US to war and I have previously provided that info. Tell me Thrawn, if the US was attacked and the capitol bldg bombed while in session, would the president still be unable to go to war if the Congress was dead?

You will have to refresh me on the another king?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:22pm
Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 10:18pm

Her willingness to lead was quite apparent from her resignation.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 11:25pm
For SRJ and Thrawn on the Standing Army

Joseph Story member of the constitutional convention and future Supreme Court Justice wrote extensively on the constitutional convention and affirmed that they agreed that the wording allowed the necessity of a standing army including all steps necessary to defend the nation

<It was said, that congress, having an unlimited power to raise and support armies, might, if in their opinion the general welfare required it, keep large armies constantly on foot, and thus exhaust the resources of the United States. There is no control on congress, as to numbers, stations, or government of them. They may billet them on the people at pleasure. Such an unlimited authority is most dangerous, and in its principles despotic; for being unbounded, it must lead to despotism. We shall, therefore, live under a government of military force. In respect to times of peace, it was suggested, that there is no necessity for having a standing army, which had always been held, under such circumstances, to be fatal to the public rights and political freedom.

§ 1178. To these suggestions it was replied with equal force and truth, that to be of any value, the power must be unlimited. It is impossible to foresee, or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, and the correspondent extent and variety of the national means necessary to satisfy them. The power must be co-extensive with all possible combinations of circumstances, and under the direction of the councils entrusted with the common defence. To deny this would be to deny the means, and yet require the end. These must, therefore, be unlimited in every matter essential to its efficacy, that is, in the formation, direction, and support of the national forces.>

http://tinyurl.com/y9ab9h7

Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:26pm
Obama and his officials and their beleaguered band of surrogates never stop complaining. If you express concerns about government health care, they complain about all these "racists" and "domestic terrorists" obstructing his agenda. If you wonder why the president can't seem to find time in his hectic schedule of international-awards acceptance speeches to make a decision about Afghanistan, they complain that it's not his fault he "inherited" all these problems. And, if you wonder why his "green jobs" czar is a Communist 9/11 truther and his National Endowment for the Arts guy is leaning on grant recipients to produce Soviet-style propaganda extolling Obama policies, they complain about Fox News.

The most recent whine -- the anti-Fox campaign -- is, apart from anything else, unbecoming to the office. President Obama is the chief of state of one of the oldest free societies in the world, but his official White House website runs teasers such as: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter.'" It gives off the air of somebody only marginally less paranoid than this week's president-for-life in some basket-case banana republic ranting on the palace balcony because his interior security chief isn't doing a fast enough job of disappearing his enemies.

If you're going to attack the press, you need a lightness of touch, not a ham-fisted crowbar such as the White House wielded on Thursday, attempting to ban Fox from the pool interviews with the "pay czar." Another bit of venerable Disraelian insouciance, on the scribblers of Fleet Street: "Today they blacken your character, tomorrow they blacken your boots." For two years, the U.S. media have been polishing Obama's boots, mostly with their drool, to a degree unprecedented in American public life.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 11:54pm
If Sarah Palin is so unimportant it makes one wonder why the leftist at Huff, Kos, and Nation spend so much valuable time demonizing her! Are they fools or just scared like the Obamanation and his Demoncrats?

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 11:56pm
Are they fools or just scared like the Obamanation and his Demoncrats? Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 11:56pm

Scared I think. Scared that the majority of Americans have now devolved to such a low point of intelligence that they would elect Barbie for president.

The first dude would make for a reasonable Ken substitute. Y'know? And it's all about the look. If she waves her hands just right and winks a lot, well then, she should be president, shouldn't she? America needs a looker in the white house.

And if things get tough, like in the middle of Sarah's Holy War, she can just quit and God will sort it out, right Rio? And he'll probably have to, sadly enough.

Just imagine her talking to the folks in Pakistan. She'll have to brush up on where it's at, of course. And then there's Putin... she may have some 'splainin' to do! Ahmadinejad.. probably just pat him on the head... that wouldn't go over too well... And Israel... whadda ya gonna do? Oy vey! From her in-depth reading curriculum she probably knows that they spy on us like crazy... right? Well, I can sleep soundly now!

No, she'd screw up royally in the diplomacy department, I fear. But, my fellow Americans, would BigPasture ever shut the hell up? Not a chance. Not while there's a democrat left to demonize. They are to blame for his unhappiness, you know. That, and a steel tractor seat. And a sheep named Sarah.

Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 12:23am
Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 12:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

Thanks for setting the hook fool.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:30am
Venerable Disraelian insouciance?

Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 11:54pm

There's no way that you wrote that. It conflicts with your usual points as well. I smell a fish.

Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 12:33am
Thanks for setting the hook fool. Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:30am

You may not know this but your body is trying to reject your brain. Just relax and let it happen. Then flush.

Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 12:35am
Wow, two days on a Palin thread...and several mentions of him by name....and SJCHER doesn't show up to defend the "45th President-to-be"?!??!?!?!

BTW....warn urmy....I'm back!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 07:58am
I think debt should be managed a bit more responsibly than I think it is now;

Posted by Thrawn at 10/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

the $83,654,400,345,212 understatement of the year!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 08:23am
I want to read more about the "socialist police state " Obama has brought us.

VS

the open minded America from the "you are either with us or against us" people supported by the "anti" crowd.

Now...was Chimpy "one of the greatest presidents ever" or simply a liberal hoax perpetrated on the poor conservatives of America?

I am sure Sarah "I'm not a quitter" Palin could tell us, as long a a hard hitter like Katie isn't asking the tough questions.

More on Death panels and the difference between black teen moms and white teen moms later.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by frosty zoom

Looks like I may be working on Bens office in NY.

I will seek out the cabal.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2009 @ 09:48am
Merely ridiculing Palin is a mistake. She represents the limitations of the largest single national "group". The demographic that is unable to analyse and critically assess the system in which they have found themselves. Unless progress in American society is made, while her election is unlikely, a more organized yet ignorant dynamic is clearly in the making.

Posted by jobbo at 10/26/2009 @ 09:52am
"God gave us energy."- Sarah "I'm not a quitter" Palin, in her resignation speech.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/26/2009 @ 09:52am
Sarah is right. Even if the Dems win this one, there is zero chance they retain it in 2010. It is better have the Dem win than to let a pro-choice, pro-card check RINO run as an incumbent.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 10:10am
........pro-card check RINO run as an incumbent.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 10:10am

That one, made her definitively expendable.....I can tolerate her holding one, or even uncomfortably, both of those moderate/liberal positions.

Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 10:49am
Can I go on the reoord saying how much I support the Happy/Darin plan to "purify the Republican Party"?

I agree...get it down to that core number of folks who think Obama isn't a citizen and Dubya was a great President.

Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 11:09am
'he whose name must not be spoken in an unfavorable light.' -- pyeatte

'Just try not to ask any questions that might put us in a bad light.' -- Alien visitor representative -- 'V'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 11:09am

Oddly didn't see much of that from you, when we were told that criticizing Bush was "not supporting the troops and wanting America to lose", did we, HL?

Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 12:05pm
BTW, I think Dems and/or Left should take a page from Limbaugh on Sarah Palin.

i.e. "Operation: Chaos-II: The Wrath of Wasilla"

Start some PACs or 527s supporting her bid in the 2012 GOP Primaries. Get lots of Dems in "open primary" states to switch to Independent and vote for her in the Repub primary...and KEEP voting for her, long after Romney or whoever have sewn it up.

Given her ego and the rabid nature of her supporters, it'll make Hillary/Obama and the "PUMAs" look like a love-fest.

Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 12:18pm
Can we PLEASE start ignoring Palin and STOP giving her the attention she so desperately craves (talk about a Desperate Housewife!)?

I don't think I can take anymore about a failed politician who is also a quitter. Tired Tired Tired of her and her stupid family and her stupid politics and her plain old all American stupidity.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:05pm
I'm sure there will be more evil comments made about her afterward by small minded people with their own agendas. But it will all roll off Palin's back. She has no time for idiots. She's much stronger now than she ever could have been as Governor of Alaska. The more the left puts her down, the stronger and more popular she gets. It's a long way until 2012 but I think we'll be seeing and hearing a lot more from Sarah Palin. Count on it.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/25/2009 @ 5:36pm

Slinger -

Just curious. Why are comments against Palin considered "evil?" That word has a specific and religious connotation, so why "evil?"

Also, are you glad that she quit her governing job in Alaska to pursue financial gain over actual governing? Does this make her an opportunist or a good politician?

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2009 @ 9:18pm

I have to say I find it ironically funny that you and Thrawn are having this very interesting conversation on a thread about Sarah Palin.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:50pm
I have to say I find it ironically funny that you and Thrawn are having this very interesting conversation on a thread about Sarah Palin. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 1:50pm

I think that they are tired, tired, tired of Sarah Palin as well.

I'm not! There's still plenty of grist for the mill. I'll try not to be to 'evil' with my commentary.

Gunslinger seems to be getting a little protective of Palin... almost a mother figure thing. It just seems a little out of keeping with his usual posts. How she'll be a contender in 2012 after quitting her position is yet to be seen, but hell, they elected Bush, didn't they?

Didn't they? ( large echo in a huge room)

Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Didn't they? ( large echo in a huge room)

Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 6:19pm

The large echo is the Supreme Court chamber, right? Because they were the ones who elected Bush, not the people...hell not even the people of Florida.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:22pm 

#1 is a very interesting statement. Most of the people around, oh, 1776 considered themselves Christians. Were they obligated to obey the government of King George?

#2...I just don't understand. First, the wording of the passage I quoted is clear; it describes governments as "servants" or "ministers" of God. The extra premise is a really easy one: a servant of God cannot act contrary to how God would. A minister certainly can't. How you can get out of that I don't know.

#3. In that situation, yeah, I would be totally OK with the President acting alone. Why? Two reasons. One, Congress voting for war isn't a real alternative. Two, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You cannot infer from that extremely unlikely hypothetical that the President has the unfettered power to order our troops into combat.

The "another king" argument is this: the colonists had just fought off King George and railed against many of his abuses. They were concerned not only about his vast power in general, but also about his specific authority to wield troops as he saw fit. They also knew that anyone with the power to wield the military as they saw fit could essentially overpower the political process because war tends to rally people behind the leadership whether that war is justified or not (see, e.g., Mexican-American war...justify that one if you can). They knew all of these things, and were so concerned about government that the first constitution was a set of Articles of Confederation that barely gave the central government any power. Are you really suggesting that the people were willing to easily move from that to a President who could singlehandly command the armed forces and do with them virtually as he pleased?

Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 4:00pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 4:00pm |

1.Look at the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence. Some would not merit a Christian disobedience, while others do. Secondly, these men were representing all of the American colonists, and not just the Christians.

<He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.>

I find those to be sufficient to obey G-d who calls people to liberty when the ruler declares war on you, you have cause to defend your lives. It was King George who actually by his actions produced the need to separate.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 4:00pm |

2.The word minister here is different from that used to describe Christian ministry (diakonos). Here the Greek word is leitourgos, a subordinate public administrator, and in this sense applied to magistrates 3. Since you've now established exceptions, it means as all presidents have determined that the president must act to defend the nation regardless of whether the Congress has issued a piece of paper. So, not only can I infer that, that is the historic understanding in our nation. It is only through liberalism after the time of Vietnam that this formal declaration requirement has surfaced.

4.<Are you really suggesting that the people were willing to easily move from that to a President who could singlehandly command the armed forces and do with them virtually as he pleased?>

Yes I am and I have the comments of the Founders to back up my point. They stated that unlike the King, the checks and balances provided by the control of the purse by Congress erased that problem

Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm 

How interesting when there's no such thing as just war theory actually in the Bible...

And here's another thought, dealing directly with Paul. Paul specifically says that government is not a terror to good, but only to evil. Let me ask you this: was King George III only a terror to evil?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:08pm 

Interesting point on #2, but I'm not sure it fully dodges the problem. An administrator is still bound to implement the will of the one for whom he administrates, doesn't that still implicate the ultimate overarching standards of God?

On #3, I don't think the logic follows. There's a difference between saying "if there's no one else left, the President has to act," and "if the President disagrees with Congress, he gets to act." The Framers didn't just go "hmm, let's just give Congress the power to sign a neat certificate to officially vindicate what the President already gets to do anyway."

On #4, I...wow. I've already said why the Presidents' own opinions aren't foolproof standards for that. I don't think you've given much of an argument for why the Founders as a whole went your way, and moreover, I don't think you've managed to overcome the gaping chasm you've suggested exists between the Articles and the Constitution. The people were reluctant to go with anything except the Articles...and then all of a sudden, the ratifying conventions are totally behind giving a President ridiculous amounts of power.

As a sidenote, the power of the purse doesn't solve, and Republican members of Congress knew this when Democrats were making anti-war noises. No one wants to be the one who won't pay for the troops in the field.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Palin: Rogue or Rouge?

posted by Betsy Reed on 10/24/2009 @ 3:01pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» The Notion

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation

Palin: Rogue or Rouge?

posted by Betsy Reed on 10/24/2009 @ 3:01pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» The Notion

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation