Palin: Rogue or Rouge?

The Nation ^ | 10/24/2009 | Betsy Reed

[presidio9]

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.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Thank you for making my point about your being a pompous, self-centered ass. Your last post confirms up the impression very nicely.

[presidio9]

Thank you for making my point about your being a pompous, self-centered ass.

I don't remember saying I wasn't pompous or self centered. I comes with the territory of being as intelligent and informed as I am, I'm afriad. Nevertheless, its obviously preferrable to being ignorant and self important enough to think you had something important to add to this thread, bcause you were too lazy to read the three short paragraphs that had already covered your point in detail.

I you want me to be honest with you, I don't really think posting without reading the thread is all the big a deal. What's really made you look like a jackass here is the absurd self righteousness with which you have wasted my important time defending yourself. I'll let you in on a little secret: I rarely back down when I know I'm right (BTW, I am almost never wrong -but you already knew that). And in this case, I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong. It's plain to see in your first post to me on this thread. You made the exact same point that the author herself was making. I was probably a bit sarcasting in reminding you to read the thread before posting (I regret not adding "so you don't look like a bombastic moron"). Your ego got bruised, and away we went. Am I to expect a couple of weeks of you posting an insult to me, no defense for yourself, and a threat of you exiting my life forever?

BTW, you've piqued my curiosity: You said I had a reputation that preceeded me here on FR. My ego is such that I don't care what kind of publicity I get. Can you name two or even one FReeper that mentioned me to you, or where you just talking out of your a%%? I only bring it up because I am so unimpressed with your intellect at this point that I wouldn't put it past you. I care to know because there are some Catholic-bashers and libertarians on FR who might be in a lot of trouble if they got caught talking out of school. I happen to know that there have only been a couple of threads on FR that had me as the subject, so you can understand that I might wonder how my name came up in casual conversation. I'll make this clear, so even you can understand it: I think you made it up, but it really wouldn't bother me if you didn't.

Tell me something else I didn't know about Sara Palin, professor.

[RegulatorCountry]

I treat anything sourced from Wikipedia like a Barak Obama campaign promise.

Having been peripherally involved in a trade dress lawsuit through a former employer, I'm extremely familiar with the phrase "confusingly similar," and as questionable as Wikipedia can be at times, that is an accurate cite of the Lanham Acts.

Those knock-off books could be removed from all shelves, and all marketing halted by injunction, until the dispute is settled ... it would take years.

[presidio9]

Those knock-off books could be removed from all shelves, and all marketing halted by injunction, until the dispute is settled ... it would take years.

Perhaps a lawyer advising Governor Palin is smart enough to understand that a lawsuit and the resulting publicity is the only way Betsy Reed is ever going to sell more that five or ten thousand of her book (which she admits is largely a compilation of previously published material)?

BTW, what kind of self-respecting radical lefty goes by the name Betsy? I once had a feminist try to tell me that Betsy Ross was sleeping with George Washinton and advising him on military strategy during the Revolution, so that could be part of it.

[RegulatorCountry]

The aspect you’re not envisioning is that an injunction resulting from a trade dress lawsuit would mean that all inventory would be pulled under court order, as would be all marketing. I was in charge of direct marketing media, in addition to having designed the packaging, for the product that was pulled in the suit that I mentioned. I had tractor-trailer loads of Sunday newspaper inserts alone. The product filled warehouses.

The intent to market a lookalike product has already been announced. Such a suit could prevent the product from ever seeing the light of day, or force serious modification to it, to address the confusing similarity.

[presidio9]

Isn’t it pretty easy to find a liberal judge (who doesn’t know much about Sara Palin but despises her anyway) to “temporarily” lift an injunction? In New York?

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re getting way ahead of yourself. I suspect such a suit would be treated seriously by the publishing industry, regardless.

The offending publisher is in Oregon, by the way.

[Stegall Tx]

So I guess this means that The Nation can't sell its crap without dressing it up like something actually popular. Seems like they would eventually get a clue, but apparently not.

[presidio9]

I don’t pretend to know anything about the publishing business, but perhaps a lawyer could still find liberal judges willing to accomadate this book in states like NY an California.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re not understanding the impact of injunctive relief on the basis of a trade dress lawsuit, Presidio9.

This is the lawsuit that I’ve referenced in previous replies to you. Read it through, and see how such an injunction is applied:

http://library.law.emory.edu/4circuit/apr96/942562.p.html

[presidio9]

Actually, I think that you are misunderstanding the context of our conversation. I will now read the link you provided, but I was throwing out hypotheticals because I find that’s generally a more entertaining way to learn about something. Have it your way if you like.

If you must know the truth, I wouldn’t read either of these books if you handed them to me. I believe that Governor Palin is a good person, but I can’t ever see myself being thrilled to vote for her for president. The thing I like best about her is the obsession liberals have with her.

[presidio9]

Your post #69 got pulled for excessive foul language, so I will respond to it here. One of the Jesuits who taught me in HS used to curse like a sailor, but never in print. The opinion that he shared with me was that profanity in writing is a sign of poor intellect in addition to a poor vocabulary. I don't expect you to understand this. To answer your charges:

I have no doubt that there are people here who think I’m an a$$hole, but I also know that I would be on a leave of absence if I used that word. Normally I’m clever enough to get the point across that a person is being an a%%hole without using the actual word. I could try to be clever (actually, I don’t really need to try and suggest that you’re making that case for yourself. But “a%%hole” isn’t a particularly fair term for you. You’re just not that intelligent. And you have an inflated sense of self worth. And you bite off more than you can chew. And you don’t know when to call it a day.

Again, the discussion we are having here originates from the fact tat you were too lazy and stupid to read the article before posting. You thought you were being clever, but you were really making the same point the author made. I called you on it. Your feelings got hurt, and you lashed out on me. Your favorite attacks seem to be that I am arrogant, and that I have a lot of enemies here. I don’t deny either, so I have enjoyed writing five or six posts that played off of both descriptions in a cartoonish manner. You took the bait.

I asked you to name even one FReeper with whom you’ve had a discussion about me. You are obviously unable to do so. Which means you were making the charge up -a favorite tactic of the hopeless on this website. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. Off the top of my head I could name a couple of dozen FReepers (including some moderators) who hate my guts, and make the same charges you do. I doesn’t bother me a bit, but it’s still fun to see them get suspended.

Finally, I’d hate myself if I didn’t suggest that you repeated the word “bombastic” to me because you are too stupid to use a thesaurus (for example, you could easily have said “pedantic” there). Obviously you called me an a%%hole for the same reason. Next, you will be attacking my typos, I’m sure. You came into my life when you forced me to remind you to read the thread, so you wouldn’t make yourself look like an idiot in the future. Frankly I wish you never had. Now, you just won’t go away. You can never win on this one, because the evidence pertaining to our discussion will always be there, and you will always be just as wrong. Deal with it.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Add to obsessive-compulsive to my former list of descriptions, specifically bombastic, egotistical, pompous, and paranoid.

And nope, I won’t go away. I can keep this up for months. And calling me a liar just because I won’t give you the info you are seeking so that you can carry on whatever warped crusade you are fighting is really low class. You attack my intellect because you don’t like my manner of argument, but really and truly, you’re the ignoramus here. I certainly don’t see anyone rushing to YOUR defense.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Off the top of my head I could name a couple of dozen FReepers (including some moderators) who hate my guts, and make the same charges you do. I doesn’t bother me a bit, but it’s still fun to see them get suspended.

You know, bub, this statement right here says a LOT about you, and one has to wonder about your motivations for being a part of this online community if you in fact relish being so despised, even by the moderators. Your attitude is trollish, and not much better than the liberal infiltrators who sign up here every day just to cause trouble.

Like I said, I won't go away, and you can check my posting history to confirm (as I'm sure you've already done). Have a good day and I'll see ya around.

[RegulatorCountry]

Actually, you don't appear particularly interested in learning anything. You've seemed rather more interested in appearing knowledgeable, about a topic that, oddly, you now say you aren't interested in understanding.

As far as context, I've been operating under the assumption that there are those reading this, who actually do want to understand, and my efforts have been directed moreso to the benefit of those who perhaps are interested, than to you.

Funny, how that works. What, exactly, is the purpose of your presence here? You're beginning to appear more than just a little ... fatuous.

[WVKayaker]

What’s your point in posting this tripe?

I tget the impression that P9 is probably not a Palin fan. The poster appears to have a problem with this conservative Christian married woman or has some other personal animosity toward her. It is surely not representative of most members of FreeRepublic. I'd imagine if she were Catholic, he would say "hail Sarah"! He has stated he would not vote for her, but must like to slop the mud. Pigs do that!

PS- P9 thinks his time is so valuable, he spends all hours of the day on FR! So, he is retired, self-employed, or Freeps on stolen time!

Click pic for SarahPac

[presidio9]

To: I disagree with the majority of the articles I post to FR. I find that I get a lot more out of hearing 20 or 30 well-informed FReepers refuting a lie that pseudo-intellectuals seem to honestly believe. Sara Palin threads are a perfect example. They tend to overflow with mindless praise for the woman. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I personally can’t think of a single bad thing to say about the woman. But I just to see it as a productive use of time or bandwith.

To Kayaker: I’m not suprised that you spend a lot more time thinking about me than I do about you. Before your post to me, I can’t remember ever seeing your name before on FR. I seem to have the same problem as Sara Palin: A lot of people who know nothing about me get obsessed and feel the need to invent character flaws to attack.

He’re what you think you know about me, and then the truth: You claim that I have a personal animosity towards Sara Palin. I have no problem with her whatsoever. I agree with her politics 100%. I think she did a great job in Alaska. I respect the way she has handled various family problems, expecially her daughter’s pregnancy, and her own “decision” to keep her retarded baby (though none of those things would make her a hero in my social circle). One of the problems we have in our society at large is that we have reduced ourselves to the point where people think its praiseworthy when somebody does exactly what God expects them to do. But that’s for a different thread. Sarah Palin seems to always do the right thing, and I respect her for it. On top of that, she excites the base (she obviously excites you), she has instinctive political chops, and she not bad to look at. So you need to move away for the Sara Palin thing as far as it relates to me. You got your signals crossed.

Next you move on to the personal attacks: You say that I’d love Palin if she were Catholic. Again, this is the first time I can remember coming across you on FR, but you sure do presume to know quite a bit about me. I make no secret of the fact that I am a Catholic, but I certainly don’t make religion a big factor when I analyze political candidates. There are an endless number of “Catholic” politicians that I can’t stand, of course. These would include CINO-RINOs like Giuliani and Szwarzenegger, of course, but also nominally conservative ones like Brownback and Santorum. So, again, that accusation is coming straight out of yor rear end.

I have never, ever attacked or criticized another religion or anyone’s religious beliefs on FR. OK, that’s not exactly true. Once I posted an article about a sizable percentage of British subjects who answered “Jedi” on a census question, but we all have our breaking points. Meanwhile, I have gone out of my way to defend Judiasm, Islam and even Zorastrianism on this web forum. Against some heated and offensive attacks. So, again, you have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m not sure why you think you get to call me a pig jut becuase you’re ignorant.

Now, I’m sure you’re not the only person here who fantasizes about my life, but you might want to have a bit more evidence before you share your conclusions. You got one thing right: I work for myself. I have for the past eleven years -in other words, all of the time I have spent on FR under this screen name. In my business, there are great periods of activity followed by longer periods of down time. Those would be generally the times that I post. On average, I’d say I spend less than ten minutes a day on FR. If losers like yourself weren’t a dime a dozen around here, I’d be flattered.

[RichInOC]

Okay, any book dedicated to the proposition that Governor Palin hasn’t had a rough enough time from the media over the last year is based on something other than reality.

[presidio9]

Actually, you don't appear particularly interested in learning anything. You've seemed rather more interested in appearing knowledgeable, about a topic that, oddly, you now say you aren't interested in understanding.

People like you may eventually make me lose my glorious head of hair eventually. What do you suppose my motive in trying to appear more knowledgeable in a subject that I have already conceeded you know more about. Are you saying I'm delusional or something? I don't get it. I have been nothing but polite and cordial with you, and I would expect that you wouldn't take your cues from conversations that have nothing to do with you. Was there anything in my tone to suggest that I might be being sarcastic? I don't think so. So I submit that any problem that you and I may be encountering looks a lot like paranoia on your part.

I you wish to end our conversation, my life will go on. The great thing about the web is that, if I cared, I could always find my copyright answers there. The only problem I have is that I can't remember insulting you in any way, so I'm a little confused by your response.