Forums | MacLife

When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig's condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God's, and signed it "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

Oh for smurf's sake.

And people eat that smurf up.

It takes months to assemble articles like this. And perhaps they're operating under the not-unreasonable (alas) assumption that we haven't heard the last of her.

They've got no one else.

It certainly is bizarre.

Oh, the infighting intensifies:

A hard-hitting piece on Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair has touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high-profile Republicans over last year’s GOP ticket – tearing open fresh wounds about leaks surrounding Palin and revealing for the first time some of the internal wars that paralyzed the campaign in its final days.

Rival factions close to the McCain campaign have been feuding since last fall over Palin, usually waging the battle in the shadows with anonymous quotes. Now, however, some of the most well-known names in Republican politics are going on-the-record with personal attacks and blame-casting.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine’s blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager.

Kristol cited a passage in Purdum’s piece in which “some top aides” were said to worry about the Alaska governor’s “mental state” and the prospect that the Alaska governor may be suffering from post-partum depression following the birth of her son Trig. “In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin’s mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign was Steve Schmidt,” Kristol wrote.

Asked about the accusation, Schmidt fired back in an e-mail: “I'm sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign.”

“After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle’s public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away,” Schmidt continued. “His attack on me is categorically false.”

Asked directly in a telephone interview if he brought up the prospect of Palin suffering from post-partum depression, Schmidt said: “His allegation that I was defaming Palin by alleging post-partum depression at the campaign headquarters is categorically untrue. In fact, I think it rises to the level of a slander because it’s about the worst thing you can say about somebody who does what I do for a living.”

The vitriol also suggests the degree to which Palin remains a Rorschach test not simply to Republicans nationally but within a tight circle of elite operatives and commentators, many of whom seem ready to carry their arguments in 2012. Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric “diva” who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?

More here.

I really don't understand the GOP fascination with her -at least as a national leader.

The only thing she offers them is that weird allure of her near-fictional life story, part of that dunder-headed conservative wet-dream of "rugged independence" and simple-minded virtue and "common sense".

They seem so compelled by this that they ignore everything else.
All they care about is her possible ability as a campaigner --not her multitude of liabilities as a leader.

I honestly never thought a major American Party could be so naive --especially after the George W. Bush fiasco.

Is "winning" more important than competence?

Yes.

I shudder when I see how she handles small crisis in her state and her personal life. I don't need the President so unstable and unable to assess the appropriate action/response to a provocation.

I wonder, after watching her past actions, if she were President right now, would she respond to North Korea by pushing back and taking us to war with them?

user in 2008 wrote:

How could Palin be expected to sit at a table opposite Kadaffi is she can't even handle an interview with Katie smurfing Couric?

The fears of the Islamic world of a new Christian Crusade against them would be born anew with a vengence.

Though I do find it offensive that they find Crusades anathma, yet see Jihads as ok. The Arab expansion was just as nasty as the Christian Crusades. Cultural blinders are not conducive to diplomacy or living together.

sturner wrote:

The fears of the Islamic world of a new Christian Crusade against them would be born anew with a vengence.

Though I do find it offensive that they find Crusades anathma, yet see Jihads as ok. The Arab expansion was just as nasty as the Christian Crusades. Cultural blinders are not conducive to diplomacy or living together.

And when it comes down to it, the Crusades that the Arabs find so offensive were a response the Arab conquest of Christian land.

sturner wrote:

There is a backlash in the Islamic world in areas like Pakistan, Malaysia, Phillipines, against Arab influence. They feel that they are as good muslims as Arabs, and that the Arabs have no greater weight in rightousness.

Do they do services in vernacular, or is it all arabic?

So they need a Martin Luther or similar.