Wednesday, January 20, 2016
"Those who applaud the incoherent ramblings of Trump and Palin are described by Abe Lincoln as those who can be fooled all the time.
Reason does not enter into their adoration of these cartoon characters.
The main question to be answered at this point is what percent of the electorate really doesn't understand or care what is being said as long as it sounds belligerent."
-- Reader Comment, Jeff, San Francisco
"Don't understand or care what is being said as long as it sounds belligerent"...kind of like when you like the sound of a song but you don't know what the lyrics are saying...
"Play it again!"
Another Reader Comment (from Gardener, Ca & NM) said, "Reading an article that tells me Palin is again on the national stage of politics, with Trump, leads me to wonder how we can make it mandatory for all who wish to become politicians to first pass the same citizenship test required for those who apply for citizenship in this country...."
Dave from Auckland wrote,
"Trump: You're fired!
Palin: I quit!"
"Although Sarah Palin was an albatross around John McCain's neck and certainly doomed his election; she quickly bounced back by shaking the Hollywood/media/publishing money trees. I'm sure she sees in Donald Trump a very, very nice tree -- no matter the outcome."
-- Will, New York
...Speculating that some of these "candidates" are "shaking money trees" and garnering attention (which is part of the same effort) and not truly seeking opportunities for public service, at all.... (Which seems like a misuse, or abuse, of The Process -- [electoral, that is...]).
As media evolves and the world connects -- all this Facebook-Twitter-Yadda-Yadda -- to what extent does all this "Change," change us? And our processes and institutions? And to what extent do we stay the same or improve?
Topic: Sarah Palin
My impressions of her and her 2008 candidacy were kind of limited -- I took in a small number of informational ideas about her, rejecting most info that went past my head. (The tedious private lives of these people? please...)
The first thing I thought was, it looked like the Republican Party, by bringing her onto the national stage as a veep candidate, was essentially saying to the Democrats who had just nominated Barack Obama (not to put too fine a point on it)...
"OK, you got a black, we got a woman!!"
Which seemed shallow, and ill-advised, to me.
Tokenism, and too fast.
And then later when she quit her job, which she had run for, and the people of Alaska elected her to, as governor of that state -- I just thought that was improper to the max. Unseemly, even. I mean, if you don't want the job, then don't run for it. Once the people have elected you, they have entrusted you with the job you asked for.
And there's no law against people quitting jobs like that -- they can do whatever they want -- but it's weird, and frowned-upon by respectable people in government and politics.
I knew someone at the state level who did something similar -- an attorney who got elected to the State House of Representatives, and quit mid-term to become a lobbyist.
He -- uh -- got a better offer -- more money. (That ol' Money-Tree...)
His action was frowned-upon, by people whose Frowns counted. He could do that if he wanted to, his choice, but it did not increase his credibility.
And you would think a person who is a lawyer would have enough education and maybe just plain upbringing to know better than that -- but -- maybe I'll write it down to "bedazzlement." He got into politics, (Whew!), won the election (Woo-Hooh!), and when the better offer, money-wise, arrived, he just flipped out or something. Got carried away -- like a kid, with New Experiences and Adventures, forgetting Responsibilities....
And I did not dislike that person: he had a friendly, affable style -- he "owned his space," wherever he was. He said to me once, "Whenever I see you in these committee meetings, you're always -- writing."
This was true.