Professor Sarah Palin

In 2004, fellow Navy veteran and Harvard graduate student Christopher Mora promoted the idea that the academic establishment had failed to reach out to citizens experienced in public service, but who did not fit the traditional idea of a politician. He successfully lobbied for the selection of Ventura, who started teaching a study group at Harvard University for the Spring 2004 semester as a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School of Government’s Institute of Politics (IOP). His 90-minute study group focused on third party politics, campaign finance, the war on drugs, and other relevant political issues. Ventura scheduled multiple famous friends to appear for his seminars including Dean Barkley and Richard Marcinko.

JKB

July 30, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Your disregard for Palin may be blinding you to the possibility the poll reveals the public’s growing disregard for college professors.

Of late, the public’s exposure to college professors have been those whose mastery is of little more than pontification and groupthink. Is the academy’s brand being diluted?

kth

July 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Best I can make of that number is thinly-veiled resentment of pointy-headed intellectuals, all the more if they are blind to Palin’s charms, rather than an earnest desire for her to enter academia.

To seriously want Palin to take the battle to academia would betray an overestimation of academia’s influence, especially the influence of individual professors. It’s more like Kissinger quipped, the arguments are so bitter because the stakes are so small. What fan of Palin’s would want her to hide her light under that bushel?

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm

and (briefly) governor of a state

It’s interesting watching a narrative take shape and how the omission of facts is used to shape the narrative in the desired direction. Time in office has no bearing on the ability to accomplish achievements. However mentioning such achievements would weaken the desired narrative, so I can see why it’s best to just completely ignore the metric of achievements and instead focus only on time served. Ineffective Governors (Blanco, Davis, Schwarzenegger, Patrick, Granholm,) who punch the clock in the office are not more effective than Governors who rack up achievements.

As for the main point of your post, no Governor Palin, at this point in her career, is probably not a good fit for the professoriate. I’m not sure whether you are intending this as a slam against her or not, for the same argument can be applied to you as a politician or actor, in that people with little charisma have slim chances for success in the world of politics or entertainment. What, you never stated that you were considering changing your profession to politics or acting? Hmm, maybe the real target of your criticism should be the sloppy poll design which seems to rely on cliched choices.

DL

July 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm

The best professor I ever had, was a mayor, who caused me to take responsibility for my own learning and not depend upon the “I feed you – You feed it back” school of mis-education.

She’d make as good a professor as any of the rest of the biased politicians that deceitfully dominate the colleges and universities of this land, spreading their propaganda, disguised as education.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm

The Colorado School Of Mines seems like a good fit for today and if her future political career amounts to anything of significance, the range of schools where Professor Palin could offer valuable and unique insight will grow.

Offering a course on the intersection of governance, bureaucracy, public policy, environmental policy, and commerce in relation to large oil infrastructure projects would be a natural fit for an accomplished governor with a solid track record, someone like Governor Palin. She’s better equipped to offer unique and substantive information to students than a professor who has no real world experience in any of the topics that pertain to actual implementation, management and negotiation of mega-projects (existing and future.)

Alex Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm

TangoMan,

Apart from raising taxes on oil companies, increasing government handouts, and negotiating a sweetheart monopoly with a Canadian corporation for an oil pipeline, what did Palin accomplish?

Or, to put it another way, what did Palin accomplish that was worthwhile?

Charlotte

July 30, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Of course Sarah Palin couldn’t be a college professor.

She doesn’t hate America enough, and wouldn’t be able to sit around chatting about how the US would be ever so much better if we were all communists.

She wouldn’t want tenure which insulates “professors” from ever being fired no matter what they do. Yet they take young college students and fill their heads with mush in the interest of “fairness”.

She wouldn’t be able to sit around the big tables in the professor’s lounge and moan and whine about how everyone is so darn stupid.

No, you’re right. She couldn’t EVER be a college professor. She is just way too classy.

PD Shaw

July 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I thought there were a lot of politicians, former and present, that taught at colleges or law schools. Is this one of these “title” things, like whether Obama was a lecturer, not a professor?

JKB

July 30, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Apart from raising taxes on oil companies, increasing government handouts, and negotiating a sweetheart monopoly with a Canadian corporation for an oil pipeline, what did Palin accomplish?

She did it all with a baby on her hip and a hunky husband at her side. That alone would qualify her for the chair of any Women’s Studies department, if, you know, those disciplines were concerned with women and not victimology.

sam

July 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm

She could certainly teach in a drama department– her lectures on Heideggerian influences in the works of Chuck Jones would be worth attending.

Brian Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm

She doesn’t hate America enough, and wouldn’t be able to sit around chatting about how the US would be ever so much better if we were all communists.

Is this just a really subtle, ironic joke, or is this your actual point of view? If so, what data do you have to support this claim? What evidence do you have that says college professors “HATE AMERICA”? I would like to see this study. Fascinating.

Steve Plunk

July 30, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Can’t pass up another opportunity to bash Palin now can we? I’m glad we all don’t choose our careers based upon public opinion polls.

Of course a good number of college professors have the credentials to teach but do a crappy job. Fact is scholarly discipline and teaching ability aren’t always connected.

Why don’t we just wait and see what she does rather than play these games of speculation? I know there’s no sport in that but it is the more polite thing to do.

charles austin

July 30, 2009 at 2:54 pm

I suppose an extremely snarky retort might be the old aphorism that those that can do while those that can’t teach.

I don’t think she’s qualified either, but I would bet she knows a damn sight more about practical politics than many professors in political science around the country right now.

Oh, and Alex, I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the old canard about the rape kits when you listed Governor Palin’s “accomplishments.” You know, serious accusations and all that.

kth

July 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm

PD, Obama has a JD, which is why he was able to teach at a law school. Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm have PhD’s in history and economics, respectively, which is why they were professors. I’ve never heard of someone becoming a professor, even in a professional school like law or engineering, without a graduate degree, unless it was someone like Einstein or the composer Schoenberg (both self-taught, both epoch-making geniuses in their fields).

The closest fit for Palin in academia would be a School of Public Administration, where one gets an MPA. There aren’t a whole lot of such schools, though Harvard and the University of Texas have them. But again, even with Palin’s experience I’d think you’d at least have to have a master’s degree to teach at those places. Not to mention that MPA programs pretty much reek of the notion of “career politician”, a thing to which Republicans are at least intermittently hostile.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Apart from raising taxes on oil companies,

The subsurface mineral rights of Alaska are owned by the people of Alaska. Raising the royalty rate charged for the extraction of the oil is different than raising a tax on the productive effort of individual actors. In the latter case, the public has no claim on the wealth generation of economic actors and taxes are, to put it bluntly, a form of extortion. In the former case, the oil companies are extracting resources owned by others, so in a sense they are middlemen, and the changed royalty formula makes a legitimate claim for part of the value that oil companies create. What Governor Palin achieved was, to put it simply, a means to share the upside in oil prices with the owners of the resources. Why should the oil companies, who are acting simply as extractors of oil, reap the benefits from price escalation when their costs of operation and costs of capital are narrowly constrained, that is, their cost to extract a barrel of oil hardly rises at all when the price of oil on the world market increases? Shouldn’t the actual owners be able to benefit from the rise in world oil prices or should they be content with the fixed royalty structure that used to exist, which was heavily favored by oil companies, and which allowed oil companies to capture 100% of the gains from oik price variability?

This was a significant achievement for the citizens of Alaska and you grossly mischaracterize it by classifying it as a simple tax increase.

increasing government handouts

As is explained above you seem to be grossly misinformed on many issues. When your bank pays you interest on your savings, they are not giving you a handout. When Governor Palin distributes increased royalty income that arise from oil price escalation, gains that wouldn’t have arisen if she had left in place the fixed royalty rates favored by oil companies, this isn’t a handout. A handout is when you tax the wealth created by individual initiative and distribute to others who have no claim on the confiscated wealth.

You seem to cling to a picture of Governor Palin as being the epitome of Dumb. If she is the poster child for “Dumb” then I’d sure like a big heapin’ helpin’ of more “dumb” governors, who can reduce, year to year, budget allocations in good fiscal times. Governor Palin’s predecessor, Governor Murkowski, put forward his last budget, FY 2007, and it authorized spending of $9.95 billion. Governor Palin’s first budget, FY2008 authorized spending of $7.825 Billion, the Legislature marked it up to $8.087 Billion, and after Governor Palin’s vetoes, the final budget came in at $7.972 Billion. Further, she reduced reliance on Federal transfers by over 20%, the dumb ox that she is. The other “dumb” move she made which accounted for 60% ($209 million) of the 5% year over year operating budget increase (inflation included), was to top up School District retirement deposits, which Governor Murkowski had neglected to fund. Again, like the dumb ox she is she only needed a $30 million supplemental budget, which after legislative input and her vetoes, totaled $78.5 million, but if she was a “normal” or “genius” politician, like say, Governor Murkowski, she would have submitted supplemental budgets of $1.396 Billion. Too bad she’s so dumb that she lucks into budgeting tightly, rather than flying by the seat of her pants and topping up with massive supplementals.

Further evidence of her efforts to reduce the size of government can be found in requests for Federal Appropriations. Governor Murkowski’s FY2007 requests totaled $349.5 million for 63 projects; Governor Palin’s FY2008 requests came to $256 million for 52 projects; her FY2009 requests came to $195.1 million for 31 projects; and her FY2010 requests were $69.1 million for 8 projects.

She has earned her bona fides on the issue of fiscal conservatism, she has achieved measures to reduce the size of government, she has earned her reputation for prudent fiscal management, for instance, she worked to forward fund, beyond the current fiscal year, some critical state departments. Contrast her approach to what we see in most other states which, over the last number of years, used record tax receipts to boost state spending faster than the rate of growth in population and inflation, and are now facing severe cash crunches.

Here’s a hint: Quit relying on Huffington Post editorials as your source of information on Governor Palin. There is plenty of information in her budget documents and the legislation that she advanced which can answer your question of what she has accomplished that is worthwhile.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

July 30, 2009 at 3:20 pm

So what we are saying here is you cannot be a car unless you were built by GM? Gorgias said something to the effect “there is no truth, if there was you could not know it, and if known, you could not tell it”. Usually, those who do the work to qualify for advanced degrees hold themselves above those who have not had the luxury to devote their time to becoming an academician. I’ll bet Bill Gates envies all those with Ph D’s after their names. Not. Alex, she accomplish more in the time she was governor than you have in your life.

Alex Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Charles and Zelsdorf:

Please describe Sarah Palin’s signficant political accomplishments while governor.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Charles and Zelsdorf:

Please describe Sarah Palin’s signficant political accomplishments while governor.

Check your moderation queue.

PD Shaw

July 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Thank you, kth.

If a JD is all you need to teach, then that would explain my impression that a lot of politicians teach. But the late Senator Paul Simon is someone who taught political science at Southern Illinios University and I don’t think he ever earned a college degree. He earned dozens of honorary degrees though.

I guess I don’t find it odd that succesful politicians might not have something to teach at a college in areas of law, politics and policy, though I do understand they would be coming through a different door than the traditional pursuits of research and writing.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 3:46 pm

though I do understand they would be coming through a different door than the traditional pursuits of research and writing.

Case in point, Barack Obama. He was hired because he was black, not because of a body of writing or research.

odograph

July 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Heh, something about those President / Vice President ratios that don’t quite add up.

Brian Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm

He was hired because he was black, not because of a body of writing or research.

Jeeze, don’t I know I wish I could put “black” on my resume. It’s paid out so well historically..

JKB

July 30, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Just so happens Scott Greenfield over at Simple Justice has a pretty good post on the differences between law professors and lawyers. Seems many schools do not require law professors to have passed the bar or have ever practiced. Certainly, explains Obama since law is hard and lecturing, for him, is easy. Not to mention, scholarly pursuits don’t prepare you for the trenches of the courtroom or for that matter the small business.

Still Palin would be a bad fit for College Professor since she has a demonstrated ability to do and the charisma to influence more than a small group of trapped novices.

Alex Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm

TangoMan:

(1) There is a difference under Alaskan law between royalties received for extraction of oil, and taxes on oil company revenues. Palin raised taxes on oil company revenue:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

(2) Sarah Palin may have cut the budget on paper because she cut state funding for local projects. However, Alaska’s operating budget ballooned under Palin (55% increase). As a consequence, local jurisdictions increased bond expenditures (which are less fiscally responsible) during Palin’s tenure. Additionally, because of the booming operating budget and an over-reliance on petroleum taxes, Alaska now faces a budget deficit when Palin had inherited a surplus.

Brian Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Oh, and Alex, I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the old canard about the rape kits when you listed Governor Palin’s “accomplishments.” You know, serious accusations and all that.

Were you talking about this?

A couple weeks back, I posted on a news report circulating the blogs that provided at least a prima facie case that the City of Wasilla Police Department was charging victims for its rape kits. I’ve been keeping my eye on the news reports for this, and I can now confidently report that this charge is false….That is indeed excellent news. Like I said, that would have been a pretty horrible policy for Palin to have been a part of, and I am happy to be able to say that it just isn’t so.

Like you said…

You know, serious accusations and all that.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Jeeze, don’t I know I wish I could put “black” on my resume. It’s paid out so well historically..

Not to side-track the discussion, but how matters were historically has no consequence to how matters are today. Even without controlling for cognitive ability, Blacks with doctorates have higher median incomes than whites with doctorates.

kth

July 30, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Still Palin would be a bad fit for College Professor since she has a demonstrated ability to do and the charisma to influence more than a small group of trapped novices.

JKB, on this we are definitely in agreement. If Sarah Palin found the Alaska governorship too small a pond for such a barracuda as herself, a classroom would probably feel like swimming in a bathtub.

Skeptic

July 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Even without controlling for cognitive ability, Blacks with doctorates have higher median incomes than whites with doctorates.

(citation needed)

Gustopher

July 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Hmm, so people think she is more vice presidential than presidential… That’s quite the backhanded compliment.

I would love for her to get her own radio talk show, maybe 3hrs a day on AM, across the country, five days a week, just filling time with her special brand of idiocy. Hours and hours of her insights into … stuff. No visuals, just her folksy charm.

But, if I had to guess, she will become a spokesmodel for the social conservatives.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Alex,

That article is what results when you task a reporter with generalized knowledge to write about topics that he really doesn’t understand. This article was written in order to compare Palin’s tax reform to Obama’s call for a “windfall profits tax.”

Just because this reporter sought to create a false equivalence by calling the Alaska reform a “windfall profits tax” doesn’t make it comparable to what Obama was advocating.

Here is the WSJ explaining, in detail, what Governor Palin accomplished:

As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.

Relative to the old system, Mrs. Palin’s plan — called “Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share” (ACES) — improves incentives for developing new resources. It ensures the state does well in boom times — as it is doing now — when oil prices are high. But it also hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don’t face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall.

Her plan includes an escalator clause that gives the state a larger share of revenues when oil prices rise. This is common to production-sharing agreements all over the world.

The reason I wrote “their cost to extract a barrel of oil hardly rises at all when the price of oil on the world” is the same reason that Governor Palin’s tax is constructed as it is, which is that as the price of oil rises so too does the cost for the energy to extract the oil. This price variability is best accounted for a below the line calculation rather than as a fixed royalty cost.

In the end, Governor Palin’s tax reform taxes the oil companies on the oil that they extract while then Senator Obama’s plan would have taxed oil companies on their worldwide profits and not on the oil they extracted from US fields. His plan was truly a windfall profits tax while hers is a royalty tax that applies to oil extracted from Alaskan fields. I know, nuance really has a way of blowing preconceived talking points out of the water.

Sarah Palin may have cut the budget on paper because she cut state funding for local projects.

I’m getting the sense that you’re a liberal. Most non-liberals realize that budget cutting “on paper” results in less spending on a host of services and projects. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm

(citation needed)

See here:

Black college graduates now have incomes close to those of white college graduates, and blacks with doctorates actually have a higher median income.

As for the control variable, cognitive ability, see here:

The analyses of the General Social Survey data from 1974 to 2000 replicate earlier findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that racial disparity in earnings disappears once cognitive ability is controlled for. The results are robust across many alternative specifications, and further show that blacks receive significantly greater returns to their cognitive ability than nonblacks. The trend data show that there was no sign of racial discrimination in the United States as early as 1970s.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 5:01 pm

But, if I had to guess, she will become a spokesmodel for the social conservatives.

She governed more as a fiscal conservative than as a social conservative. She lived her own life as a social conservative though.

Alex Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm

TangoMan –

Oil royalties go into the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Taxes on oil revenues go into the state budget.

Palin raised taxes on oil companies, as the article you cite from the WSJ demonstrates. She then provided a rebate from that tax collection to the citizens of Alaska. That rebate is DIFFERENT than the checks that Alaskan citizens receive from the Permanent Fund.

When I say that she cut spending “on paper” what I mean is that instead of spending money on projects directly from the state coffers, the money for those projects was still spent by local municipalities and county. It’s just that it was spent via bond acquitisitions rather than direct expenditures. Meaning those towns have to pay interest. Meaning that in the long run, the taxpayers get soaked by Palin’s cuts.

While Palin was cutting state spending on local infrastructure projects, she was INCREASING the state’s operating budget (it was 55% greater by the time she resigned than it was when she started). When Palin became governor, Alaska had a budget surplus. It now has a budget deficit.

She may have “cut” spending, but she didn’t cut it wisely and future Alaskans are going to pay the price for her incompetence.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 5:53 pm

Oil royalties go into the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Taxes on oil revenues go into the state budget.

You’re focusing on nomenclature, not substance. A tax on oil revenues earned from pumping Alaskan oil out of the ground, is in substance, a royalty tax. It just happens to be a royalty tax that is more flexible that a standard royalty tax and allows incentives to be less distorted by tax policy.

Obama’s windfall profit tax, which was the whole point behind creating this comparative meme in the press, would tax companies on their refining profits, on their profits from bubblegum sales in company owned stations, on their brokerage profits, on their transportation profits in shipping oil, etc. Palin’s tax reform doesn’t target these activities, it targets a tax on the oil that is pumped from Alaskan ground. That, in substance, is a royalty tax, it just takes on a different, more flexible, form.

When I say that she cut spending “on paper” what I mean is that instead of spending money on projects directly from the state coffers, the money for those projects was still spent by local municipalities and county.

If you have evidence that Governor Palin imposed unfunded mandates upon towns and municipalities I’d very much like to read about it. Substantive evidence please, so no original source documents that are blog posts in the Nut-O-sphere.

If local towns and municipalities embarked on local improvement projects, then those improvement projects are not the State’s business and it is not State taxpayers who are on the hook.

You know that saying about how if we want to stop racism we should stop using race in decisions, well, an analogue to that principle is that if we want to cut government spending then we need each level of government to control and to cut its spending. Governor Palin did her part. President Obama is not doing his part.

he was INCREASING the state’s operating budget (it was 55% greater by the time she resigned than it was when she started).)

This is the same trick used in the Kyoto Protocol when they determined how to set targets. They used the year of fall of communism as the benchmark, an endpoint which marked the complete resistance of pollution control from countries behind the Iron Curtain, compared to Western countries that had ALREADY made significant improvements, which would not be counted.

Governor Murkowski’s last Operating Budget was $7.6304 billion. Governor Palin’s first Operating Budget, FY2008 was $6.7254 Billion. Her FY 2009 Operating Budget was $7.5605 Billion. Her FY2010 Operating Budget is $7.3697 Billion. Table on Page Four of this budget document.

First off, I never learned “liberal” math, so I can’t see how an initial decrease in operating budgets of 12% followed by an increase of 12% in FY2009 and then a decrease of 2.5% in FY2010, translates into a “liberal math” increase of 55%. Secondly, the point of where to set the reference mark, her first budget or her predecessor’s last budget, is an open question. Should the “55% increase” figure be measured against historical norms or against Governor Palin’s impressive budget cutting efforts. If against the historical norms then the “55% increase” isn’t as large, but if against Governor’s efforts, then the “increase” is inflated.

PD Shaw

July 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Jeeze, don’t I know I wish I could put “black” on my resume. It’s paid out so well historically..

Oh come on, this is a day of beer consumption and finally getting real about race. The guy that recruited Obama to teach at Chicago said that race was a factor in seeking Obama out to teach there. LINK It certainly wasn’t the only factor. From everything I’ve read, including conservative law prof blogs, Obama was a good teacher. And having a non-white liberal at Chicago probably enhanced the student experience. If all that makes me a racist, I demand an audience in the White House and a six-pack of Bell’s Amber.

PD Shaw

July 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm

I took a political science class in undergrad from former Presidential candidate John Anderson on the subject of third-parties. He was not an academic either, but it seems like the universities find room for the “celebrity” politician to teach.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Let’s be upfront about what is going on with your reaction to Governor Palin. Facts are not leading you to reach a conclusion about Sarah Palin, rather, you’ve reached a conclusion about Sarah Palin and now you are in search of “facts” (conjured up 55% increases in operating budget spending) that support your emotional bias against the woman. Actual evidence from the Alaska Office of Management and Budget which blow your “facts” into disrepute won’t change your emotional opinion about Sarah Palin for you’ll simply embark on a journey to find some other “facts” which reinforce your emotional bias.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 6:08 pm

The guy that recruited Obama to teach at Chicago said that race was a factor in seeking Obama out to teach there.

Exactly. There were plenty of Harvard Law Review presidents who graduated before, and after, Obama, and they, even with impressive records of scholarship and published writings, never got offers of appointment to a top-tier law school only a few years out of law school. In fact, no other president of the HLR was ever offered a contract to write an autobiography for simply having achieved the presidency of the HLR. The only reason that Obama got that book contract was because he was black.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 6:23 pm

From everything I’ve read, including conservative law prof blogs, Obama was a good teacher.

I’m sure that lot’s of lawyers could have been good teachers too but they never got the chance to be hired because they didn’t have the depth of scholarship and experience which is normally required for the position.

Secondly, while Obama may have been an engaging teacher, he was an abysmal scholar.

mpw280

July 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm

It might be that if less academics taught then there would be better teaching. Nothing like doing it over and over to make it stale. Nothing like doing it in real life to keep it real. There are plenty of professors who hardly deserve the title due to all sorts of reasons, and there are plenty of people who could teach courses due to real life experiences who are passed over (as being touted here) due to their lack of credentials. Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean she isn’t a viable professor, just maybe not viable to you because of your views.
mpw

wr

July 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Is this just a really subtle, ironic joke, or is this your actual point of view? If so, what data do you have to support this claim? What evidence do you have that says college professors “HATE AMERICA”? I would like to see this study. Fascinating.

Apparently you missed the tip off, where she mentioned students with “skulls full of mush.” One of Limbaugh’s standard formulations. She’s a ditto-head, and Rush has told her professors are eeeevilll.

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Back to the topic at hand, Governor Palin would be a natural appointment at every single School of Journalism is the US. She could teach classes on media malpractice and the cancerous injection of opinions into what should be the straight reporting of facts. I’m sure that she could design a 2 year course of study for journalism majors and have no trouble filling the course content with pertinent and personal examples of how journalism has jumped the tracks.

DL

July 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Wow! This is certainly a lot of cyberdigits for someone who stepped down from her public job.

steve

July 30, 2009 at 9:19 pm

“Back to the topic at hand, Governor Palin would be a natural appointment at every single School of Journalism is the US.”

Her grammar is poor. Would be difficult for her to teach journalism.

Steve

charles austin

July 30, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Brian Knapp, good catch on the page 14 retraction of the page 1 headlines. As I noted in the comment thread of the link you provided, making a damning accusation on something like this and saying you are open to being proven wrong is pretty sleazy. Who do you think Alex is, Dan Rather?

Anywy, we all know that Sarah Palin accomplished nothing good as the Alaska Governor and that the state barely survived her recently abbreviated term. Heck, I’m surprised that any of those Deadliest Catch fisherman managed to remain alive.

I don’t know if Sarah Palin has, or should have, a future in elective politics. But I struggle understanding how utterly uncivil and patronizing some of you are towards her. The generous dollops of misogyny, elitism, and partisan hackery is really quite unseemly.

G.A.Phillips

July 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm

http://sarahs-accomplishments.blogspot.com/2009/07/george-soros-group-attacking-sarah.html

Brian Knapp

July 30, 2009 at 11:17 pm

I don’t know if Sarah Palin has, or should have, a future in elective politics. But I struggle understanding how utterly uncivil and patronizing some of you are towards her.

Charles,civility, really?

And…

Brian Knapp, good catch on the page 14 retraction of the page 1 headlines. As I noted in the comment thread of the link you provided, making a damning accusation on something like this and saying you are open to being proven wrong is pretty sleazy.

Questioning an elected official’s position during a national campaign based on evidence at hand and then saying you were wrong…is sleazy?

How does this fit with civil discourse?

kth

July 30, 2009 at 11:24 pm

>>>The generous dollops of misogyny, elitism, and partisan hackery is really quite unseemly.

Misogyny? no, I have a high opinion of most women in politics, including Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchison; and moreover consider Rick Perry about Palin’s speed, maybe even more vacuous.

Elitism? Hell yes. I don’t subscribe to the theory that anyone who can write his/her name is qualified to hold office.

Partisan hackery? Who knows? The mote in the other guy’s eye is always bigger than the log in one’s own. If someone exactly like Palin appeared on a Dem ticket, in exactly the same circumstances, I would probably vote for that ticket because of my ideological commitments. But I probably would be a little nervous about his/her selection (especially if the guy at the top of the ticket were old and a non-trivial risk to die in office), and would definitely not be trumpeting that person as the future of my party.

An Interested Party

July 30, 2009 at 11:30 pm

But I struggle understanding how utterly uncivil and patronizing some of you are towards her.

Perhaps you should seek out examples of how some have treated the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, and especially lately, the president, among many others…maybe that will help you to understand incivility in politics…it really is quite laughable to observe the professional grievance movement that is developing around the former governor of Alaska…it is quickly putting to shame anything that, say, Al Sharpton has ever done in the same field…

TangoMan

July 30, 2009 at 11:48 pm

If someone exactly like Palin appeared on a Dem ticket, in exactly the same circumstances, I would probably vote for that ticket because of my ideological commitments. But I probably would be a little nervous about his/her selection (especially if the guy at the top of the ticket were old and a non-trivial risk to die in office), and would definitely not be trumpeting that person as the future of my party.

Someone worse that Palin topped the Democratic ticket. I’m not sure if you personally have trumpeted Obama as the future of the party, but a whole bunch of your fellow travelers sure have.

kth

July 31, 2009 at 12:04 am

Tangoman, I don’t expect you to have a high opinion of Obama, but surely even you can see that there’s a big difference between proving oneself in a hard-fought primary campaign, as Obama did, and being plucked from semi-obscurity, as Palin was.

TangoMan

July 31, 2009 at 12:20 am

there’s a big difference between proving oneself in a hard-fought primary campaign, as Obama did, and being plucked from semi-obscurity, as Palin was.

This point I readily concede. Obama did prove himself to be a good campaigner, if we attribute circumstance to be talent, in other words, however he won, he deserves praise for winning the nomination and the election. As he noted, he took advantage of his moment under the sun and the stars aligned for him, for a variety of reasons.

My impression of your comment was that you were focusing on executive ability, honesty, and experience. On these points I’ll stand pat. On campaigning and being tested under fire, Obama did very well during his two year campaign. That said, I don’t think that there can be any rational comparison between his campaign experience and Palin’s short 8 weeks on the campaign, and here even Obama agrees when he notes that the fundamental difference between him and Palin was that he had a solid six months to prepare himself for the ordeal.

TangoMan

July 31, 2009 at 12:29 am

I have a high opinion of most women in politics, including Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchison;

You mean, Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Quitter? 🙂

kth

July 31, 2009 at 12:32 am

Well, he didn’t just outrun a field of nobodies, but beat Hillary Clinton, a formidable candidate who would certainly have beaten McCain in the fall. And we can’t know that Palin would have performed similarly well. She might have fallen on her face like Guiliani, or any number of other failed candidates from either party, and thus taken herself out of the running the way they did.

And yet: if Mitt Romney had won the nomination, and picked Palin, I don’t think you would have seen quite the freak-out–because Romney seems pretty hale, the risk of him dying in office pretty remote. Like when George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle–people scratched their heads, but ultimately it didn’t matter much. Different story with McCain, given his age and medical history.

TangoMan

July 31, 2009 at 1:14 am

Well, he didn’t just outrun a field of nobodies, but beat Hillary Clinton, a formidable candidate who would certainly have beaten McCain in the fall.

Certainly, Hillary was a formidable opponent. I’m not saying that Obama had a cake-walk. His team did remarkably well with their RICO-style efforts in many caucus states, he held his own in the debates, and he developed positions on the issues of the day. However, he had the press in the bag, he rode a wave of white-guilt, he rode a phenomenon of being an empty vessel for voters, he ran at a time when being the anti-Bush was a huge premium, etc.

Look, just like Presidents take the blame for downturns in the economy and credit for upturns in the economy, when they really don’t have the levers to pull to produce the desired results, Obama can take credit for being a winning candidate even when there were so many factors beyond his control which had a far bigger impact on his success when measured against his own contributions.

And we can’t know that Palin would have performed similarly well. She might have fallen on her face like Guiliani, or any number of other failed candidates from either party, and thus taken herself out of the running the way they did.

I’m not much prone to fantasy positions, so you’re right, we can’t know. I’m willing to wait to see how she does if she runs in the future. I’m not prepared to judge her on a hypothetical.

And yet: if Mitt Romney had won the nomination, and picked Palin, I don’t think you would have seen quite the freak-out–because Romney seems pretty hale, the risk of him dying in office pretty remote.

Perhaps, but I don’t really buy it. I think the freak out resulted in direct proportion to the charisma issue that Obama owned. Before McCain selected Palin, Obama owned the charisma issue. McCain’s campaign was stolid, boring, lifeless and all the vigor, excitement, hope, and enthusiasm were owned by the Democrats. Palin neutralized a good portion of the Obama advantage, his destiny was threatened, and the threat was embodied within one woman. After her selection it was like a live electrical wire was placed against a slumbering conservative electorate. Her convention speech drew almost the same ratings as Obama’s even though it was carried by fewer networks.

I don’t buy the reason for the freak-out being McCain’s age. If that was the case then people would have behaved more rationally, more matter of factly; what we saw was the opposite, a visceral, unyielding barrage directed at Palin. The stakes were very, very high and she was a roadblock to history being made. Never doubt how much Obama’s election meant to people who view their own self-worth by validating themselves as anti-racists.

sam

July 31, 2009 at 6:54 am

@Tangoman

Someone worse that Palin topped the Democratic ticket.

You know, Tman, I’ve been following this comment thread and have been impressed with your marshalling of facts in support of your position and your argument in general. Then you write something like that. It puts me in mind of a columnn that Dave Barry wrote on Ross Perot. Perot, he said, would be going along making sense, then he’d say something like, “But the Republicans have put a GIANT RADIOACTIVE SCORPION in my cellar!” That last of your’s has the same crediability-shearing effect.

Matt

July 31, 2009 at 1:46 pm

If someone exactly like Palin appeared on a Dem ticket, in exactly the same circumstances, I would probably vote for that ticket because of my ideological commitments.

Oh hell no. I’d vote for a moderate republican over her batshit insane persona any day.

However, he had the press in the bag, he rode a wave of white-guilt, he rode a phenomenon of being an empty vessel for voters, he ran at a time when being the anti-Bush was a huge premium, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAROLFMAO..OBama had the press so far into his bag that’s why they talked 24/7 about him and ayers/rezko/bittergate/wright/and some other crap I’ve forgotten already.

Look bro if you want to understand your “opponents” you better stop attributing stupid shit to them. I really don’t think white guilt had any real significant effect on the outcome (otherwise Jesse Jackson would of won years ago)..

Look, just like Presidents take the blame for downturns in the economy and credit for upturns in the economy,

For sure hence he being viciously attacked by fox news when the stock market fell and then rabidly praised for the rebound… oh wait…

TangoMan

July 31, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Then you write something like that.

The Palin family lived within their means. The Obama family always spent more than they earned. Governor Palin governed as a fiscal conservative. Senator Obama never governed. The Palin family created wealth. The Obama family sought to redistribute wealth. Governor Palin managed a large bureaucracy, and did so successfully. Senator Obama had never managed any organization. Governor Palin had fought corruption within her own party, at great risk to her own career, an endeavor which sent people to jail and resulted in the largest fines in Alaskan history being levied against the convicted politicians. Senator Obama purposely set out to move to Chicago and integrate himself into the corrupt political machine. Todd Palin never benefited personally from his wife’s position. Michelle Obama exploited her position and reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars of benefits.

The comparisons can go on forever. Someone far worse than Palin topped the Democratic ticket.

Matt

July 31, 2009 at 5:07 pm

Anytime Palin is mentioned Tangoman pops out of nowhere to defend her with truth lies whatever is required.. It’s a marvel to watch.

TangoMan

July 31, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Anytime Palin is mentioned Tangoman pops out of nowhere to defend her with truth lies whatever is required.. It’s a marvel to watch.

If I’m advancing lies, then you should expose them. Look, I only engage on issues where I have some knowledge and my commenting and blogging record is googleable. Similarly, you’ll rarely see me engaging on topics where I only have a vague familiarity on the material. I spent a lot of time looking at Palin’s record before and after she was announced. If you think that Alaska budget documents are lies then I’d encourage you to state that loudly and proudly.

Matt

August 1, 2009 at 4:40 pm

The Obama family always spent more than they earned.

Only a partisan hack would make a claim like that. The rest isn’t worth my time as arguing with partisan hacks like you produce nothing positive and I have better things to do with me time. Enjoy the coolaid…

TangoMan

August 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Only a partisan hack would make a claim like that. The rest isn’t worth my time as arguing with partisan hacks like you produce nothing positive and I have better things to do with me time. Enjoy the coolaid…

True to form, I give you that. The argument “you are X and it is beneath my dignity to argue against X, therefore I win” is a cop-out for people who can’t rely on facts.

Evidence in support of my position:

It is no surprise that President Obama supports unprecedented spending and borrowing in the federal budget since he has never suffered any consequences from the excessive spending and borrowing in his private life.

And I’m not just talking about the First Lady’s $540 sneakers.

A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate.

During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet. During a stop in Ohio, she said, “I know we’re spending – I added it up for the first time – we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth.”

Let’s examine how tough things were for this couple using various public records.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.

The Obamas’ adjusted gross income averaged $257,000 from 2000 to 2004. This is above the threshold of $250,000 which Obama initially used as the definition of being “rich” for taxation purposes during last year’s election campaign.

The Obama family apparently had little or no savings during this period since there was virtually no taxable interest shown on their tax returns.

In 2003, they reported almost $24,000 in child care expenses and, in 2004, about $23,000. They also paid about $3,400 in household employment taxes each year. And as Michelle stated, they spent $10,000 a year on “extracurriculars” for the children.

These numbers clearly show the Obamas were living beyond their means and they might have suffered financially during the decline in housing prices had they relied on taking ever larger amounts of equity from their home to pay the bills. . . .

President Obama has never faced consequences in his private life when it comes to managing money. He always had enough money simply by borrowing more and more. And just when things got tight, those magic beans came along to save the day.

But as a nation, we cannot base our future on the hope that some day Jack and those magic beans will also save the rest of us.

TangoMan

August 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm

I really don’t think white guilt had any real significant effect on the outcome

What’s it like living a life where everything you believe is opposed by reality? Do you even notice reality? Life must be great inside that bubble you create.
CNN Exit Polls.

Race of Candidates Was…

Most Important Factor (2%)
OBAMA 58%
MCCAIN 41%

Important Factor (7%)
OBAMA 52%
MCCAIN 47%

Was Race of Candidates an Important Factor to You?

Yes (9%)
OBAMA 53%
MCCAIN 46%

Was Race of Candidates a Factor to You?

Yes (19%)

OBAMA 53%
MCCAIN 45%

Race worked to Obama’s advantage more than to his disadvantage. Was race the only factor that worked to Obama’s advantage? No, it wasn’t. However, it gave him two significant advantages. First off in the primaries. As Ferraro noted, if Obama was a white man whose principal experience was being a “community organizer” and having served only 144 days in the Senate before embarking on his Presidential campaign, he would have been laughed off the campaign trail. The second advantage came from people believing he was a post-racial candidate who could heal race relations in this country.

The first advantage worked to his benefit in the racially conscious Democratic Party primaries. The second advantage played well with the general electorate. Combine these two advantages on the campaign trail and you alter the battlefield. McCain withheld fire because of Obama’s race. People were more forgiving of Obama because of their own sensitivity to racial issues. Come election time the favorable terrain, combined with the direct vote of racists who thought his race was the most important attribute or a very important attribute, resulted in a significant Obama advantage.