Sarah Palin Lurks

The political zombies from previous failed Republican campaigns simply refuse to go quietly into the night.

First we had Rick Santorum maintaining his moral crusader profile and penning articles for conspiracy “news” site World Net Daily as he treads water waiting for 2016.

Then we had Rick Perry announcing his intention to stand down from the Texas governorship after his current term expires, and floating the hilarious possibility of a second presidential run.

And now it is the turn of everyone’s favourite reality TV star, Sarah Palin, to publicly float her future political intentions. Yes. The person who makes Michele Bachmann look cerebral and wise.

The lady with the uncontrollable facial tick thinks that she would make a good US senator.
The lady with the uncontrollable facial tick thinks that she would make a good US senator.

RealClearPolitics reports on a recent appearance by Palin on Sean Hannity’s radio show:

SEAN HANNITY: There’s been talk that you might run for Senator in Alaska. Have you considered that at all?

SARAH PALIN: I’ve considered it because people have requested me to consider it. But, I’m still waiting to see what the lineup will be and hoping that — there again, there will be some new blood, new energy, not just kind of picking from the same old politicians in the state that come from political families, that have sort of reigned up there for so many years because too many of them have been part of the problem.

I’m glad you brought that up because Senator Mark Begich has got to be replaced. He has not done what he has promised to do for the people of Alaska, and that was to represent what it is that the nation needs in terms of energy development and so many other natural resources — development issues that are near and dear to Alaskans hearts because he is on the wrong side of the aisle he has to go along to get along with his Democrat leadership. And that is a shame. That is a waste of opportunity for our nation.

HANNITY: If you think that whoever is running doesn’t have the ability to win, and you think you could, would that propel you into the race you think?

PALIN: Well, I think any American with a heart for service has to always have in the back of their mind that they would do anything, everything that they could to help the cause, even if perhaps it doesn’t look necessarily appealing or necessarily fitting in with a conventional plan that they tried to orchestrate for themselves or their family. I, along with anybody, would have to say that I would do whatever I could to help. If that was part of that help, then it would have to be considered. (Sean Hannity Show, July 9, 2013)

Of course, this declaration of intent is couched in the usual “reluctant saviour” terms that Palin and others love to use, i.e. they very much enjoy being private citizens, but are reluctantly considering returning to public office because they are being urged by so many people to do so. Because the one thing that the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body (ha!) lacks at present is the wisdom, experience and political conviction of Sarah Palin.

God help us all.


The Last Word On Chick-Fil-A

Glenn Greenwald says it best:

Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them.

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ principal owner on the desirability of same-sex marriage.

Yes. This is why it is so disconcerting to see supposedly “enlightened” liberal politicians in the US calling for more severe sanctions against Chick-Fil-A, including the refusal by cities and municipalities to grant the fast food chain permission to open more outlets. Such bullying tactics have no place in a democracy, least of all one that claims to place such a premium on the right to free speech.

Greenwald goes on to say:

It’s always easy to get people to condemn threats to free speech when the speech being threatened is speech that they like. It’s much more difficult to induce support for free speech rights when the speech being punished is speech they find repellent. But having Mayors and other officials punish businesses for the political and social views of their executives — regardless of what those views are — is as pure a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as it gets, and beyond that, is genuinely dangerous.

It is a real shame and surprise to see so many politicians taking the opposing view. It certainly doesn’t do much for the image of “Chicago politicians” to see both Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno attempting to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of their executives by vowing to deny permission for the company to expand in their city.


If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who support same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents. You can’t cheer when political officials punish the expression of views you dislike and then expect to be taken seriously when you wrap yourself in the banner of free speech in order to protest state punishment of views you like and share. [My emphasis.]


This is one of those times where someone else gets there first and says it better. But I wanted to put on the record of this blog that I agree totally with Glenn Greenwald on this issue. While the cultural and civil rights positions expressed by the Chick-fil-A CEO are to my mind socially regressive and (more importantly) completely irrelevant to Chick-fil-A’s success as a corporation, he should be allowed to say what he says, and the public have the right to vote with their feet and choose not to patronise the restaurant chain if they feel strongly about the matter. Beyond that, no more needs to be said. Elected politicians certainly have no right – moral, constitutional or otherwise – to use their powers to bully or discriminate against individuals or companies with whom they happen to disagree.

Sarah Palin Is Unhappy

Suffer and roar, Sarah Palin:

Oh yes, freedom was snuffed out in America at precisely 10.08AM ET, when the US Supreme Court released their ruling in favour of ObamaCare. No more freedom anymore, only slavery and socialism. Right.

Actually, no. Agree with ObamaCare or not, nothing has really died in America today apart from the things that Sarah Palin has been busy killing since she first rose to prominence – no more nuance or context, just black & white, right & wrong, hysterical overreaction, mean-spiritedness and all of the other heartwarming traits that we can reliably expect from the former governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate.

Sarah “Death Panel” Palin’s opposition was almost reason enough on its own to support the Affordable Care Act.

Suffer and roar.

On Death Panels

Sarah Palin - ObamaCare - Affordable Heathcare Act - Death Panels

Normally, I try not to lend this person’s activities any of my time or attention, but Politico reports that Sarah Palin is resurrecting her scaremongering “death panel” message in anticipation of the upcoming US Supreme Court ruling on the new health care law’s constitutionality.

Says Politico:

Palin charged in a August 2009 Facebook post that the Democrats’ health care bill would empower a “death panel” of government bureaucrats who can decide who lives or dies. The 2009 claim earned Palin Politifact’s “Lie of the Year,” but she said today that the president’s health care law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board makes life-or-death decisions.

“It was a pretty long post, but a lot of people seem to have only read two words of it: ‘death panel,’” Palin wrote today. “Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding.”

No, Palin. People read the whole thing, their minds just stuck on those two words – “death panel” – because it was such an outrageous distortion of one of the best bits about the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. Requiring health insurance providers to cover end-of-life care discussions between patients and their doctors was an excellent idea, one that would have encouraged thousands of Americans to decide whether or not they would want very aggressive and costly treatment during their final days, potentially saving them or their loved ones from unnecessary and prolonged pain and anguish when the time comes, not to mention saving vast sums of money and lowering insurance premiums for everyone.

Equating this with a room full of stern bureaucrats weighing the value of your life in their hands and deciding whether or not you are worthy of treatment was a case of shameful fantasy and hyperbole, and ultimately resulted in this provision being struck from the finished law – and you think that you are doing the American people a service?

Essentially, this seems to come down to a quibble about which invisible, mysterious forces are allowed to exercise life-or-death decisions over us (for after all, there is potentially unlimited demand for healthcare, and very limited resources to go around). Palin seems to prefer the invisible hand over the faceless bureaucrat, but if she could think in full colour rather than monochrome black/white, right/wrong for just a moment, she might realise that rationing of healthcare inevitably occurs in any system, and that the unchecked free market is little better a solution than the dark room of emotionless socialist bureaucrats created by her fevered imagination.