Let the Mindless Palin Speculation Begin!

So Sarah Palin made some headlines this week, abdicating the throne of Alaska to pursue...something other than running Alaska.

While it's all well and good that she's making actual headlines, rather than wedging herself awkwardly into the conversation by talking about how creepy that Dave Letterman guy is (slaps forehead), what she has now started is an endless carousel of annoying speculation.

The news ran between segments about Michael Jackson and that Jonas Brother who got engaged, if that tells you anything about the magnitude of the speculating.

There are a few schools of thought on the subject. One is that she's bailing due to up-and-coming lawsuits that would derail her political viability, another is that she'll use all that time she was wasting trying to run Alaska and devote it to a tour of the lower 48 on her way to the White House, and another thinks that she'll ride the gravy train with biscuit-capped wheels all the way to the bank, getting out of elected office and speaking for money.

The three are not incompatible, which leads to a wide array of various combinations (seven!), and fuels speculation further.

I yield to the imitable Mark McKinnon, who prepped her for her admittedly low-bar and successful Vice-Presidential debate with Joe "HEY!" Biden. He says that she exceeded his expectations in the debate, always knows how to keep things interesting, and he concludes that she has still more up her sleeve.

But what do we actually know about Palin, and could that shed light on her future intentions? I don't think we know enough about her, honestly. There's not enough on the record, politically, to gauge her actions in that arena.

That plays to her advantage. While I think it'd be akin to comparing apples to oranges F-16 Tomcat jet planes, she, like President Obama, has enough of what I'd call a "blind appeal" that makes her, to many people, simply wonderful, despite lacking hitherto considered invaluable intangibles, in their cases, experience.

In other words, those who cultishly cling to Palin, as Obama, don't cling because of their brief political stints as governor and senator respectively; They've got something else altogether. Call it snazz, I guess. Now, from there, you can go off on a number of different tangents and directions spouting the obvious differences between Obama and Palin. I'm not comparing them any further or to any other extent.

She's very folksy, which appeals to some and doesn't to others. She's relatively inexperienced, which matters to some and doesn't to others. But across the board, the consensus is that she keeps things interesting and is therefore someone to keep an eye on.

Whatever breaks up this Michael Jackson mania is a-okay with me, anyway.

So the Pope and Nancy Pelosi Walk Into a Bar...

But really, that happened today.

His Holiness (that's his moniker, not mine particularly), Pope Benedict XVI met with House Speaker Fancy Nancy Pelosi today in Rome.

I'm sure the conversation between the pontiff and Pelosi was more than a little awkward.

Pope: So. You still all for abortion?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: You know I'm infallible right?

Nancy: Uh. Yes sir.

Pope: Okay! Just making sure we were on the same page on that one...(tapping fingers awkwardly)...So, looks like that Internet thing is here to stay, huh?

Nancy: YES! Do you ever go on Amazon? How about Twitter?

Pope: Like everyday! Every. Single. Day!

It probably didn't really go like that, but according to Glenn Thrush at Politico, the Pope and Pelosi did exchange some words on the subject, while also remaining chipper and discussing other things. Benny, as he was affectionately called, even blessed some rosaries.

Awkward exchanges aside, the whole thing got me thinking about the odd relationship between religion and politics.

I know I'm chartering into dangerous territories by even bringing it up; just look at the comments section on Thrush's blog post to see how fired up, even violent, people get about it. Don't worry, I don't plan on saying anything definitive and therefore I hope nothing offensive. It's all gravy, baby.

But there is one undeniable fact concerning this: There is religion and there is politics, and some want the two as oppositely positioned as physically possible while others can't help but blend them together. That's not subject to debate.

Now some interesting facets of the conversation, be them right or wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but are certainly debatable:

Separation of Church and State is an immovable object at the foundation of our government and the political mindset therein. The law which is prescribed by the legislature should be one that applies in a vacuum. It should apply to everyone without regard to religion, or race, or status, or sexual orientation for that matter. The law applies to one and all and religion shouldn't have anything to do with the molding of that law.

Now sponsorship, to me, is an entirely different matter.


One of the biggest arguments I hear concerning church and state comes during the Holidays. The Creche. Where DO we put it?! First of all, I couldn't care less. Often times, the aesthetic value of these rickety displays is an affront to both the religious and the secular.

But I'm not so sure that the government ought not be a representation of the constituency therein. If you have a primarily Christian legislature and population, such decorations make sense. If the state of New York wanted to put up several menorahs around their Jewish populations, or Islamic symbols around their Muslim neighborhoods, I've got no beef with that. I'm not sure you could find anybody, save the bigot, of course, who would have strong objections.

Decorations don't affect the rule of the law. Legislators do. Which makes a nice little segway (no, not that segway) to my next point.

Religion is the choice of people, and legislators are people, too.

This one has perplexed me for awhile, probably due to my proximity to the much-ballyhooed Bible Belt. How do legislators who claim religious affiliation separate themselves from it?

The answer isn't one at all, but rather a choice. Some legislators and political figures embrace it. Mike Huckabee for example often embraced his roots as a Baptist preacher, but also has come to distance himself from it as he as been propelled into a more diverse, national spotlight. Nancy Pelosi, obviously, puts her religious views on the back-burner when legislating. Were she to perhaps make heavy weather out of them, her constituency for which she is obliged to represent would have a cow, likely impaling her at first sight, or more likely just not re-electing her.

Try as they might, some can't escape their religious affiliations. Mitt Romney is Mormon. Don't think the very mention of that fact didn't rub a lot of people down South the wrong way.

We pick and choose our legislators to represent their constituency and vote for or against them accordingly. Their religion either does or doesn't affect their decision to use it or not as a legislative tool. The difference is as clear as Arkansas and California.

In Arkansas, Thomas "T-Paine" Paine Day has failed repeatedly to get off the ground amid concerns that Paine was anti-religious, scaring off legislators and killing all measures of the bill. A bill to ban late-term abortions doesn't even get a rebuttal during the conversation today because the leader of the ACLU (rightly) contends that "it wouldn't matter anyway." There's a bit in the state Constitution that prohibits atheists from participating in government, for Pete's sake, although it is not enforced.

In California, gay rights, abortion, and a number of other more-secular bills are passed daily.

But some are not. This past November, Californians failed to stop an initiative, Proposition 8, to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal. That was in California. Literally the Gayest State per capita in the union couldn't keep such a measure from passing.

What does this say? That California is a religious and conservative haven? Of course not. It means that there's a choice when it comes to religion or, in the case of Prop. 8, religiously sensitive issues. Bill Maher famously says that if they're really going to consider regulating anything, it should start with religion, as more people have offended, died or killed others in its name than any other cause. But that's ridiculous. It'd be denying a choice.

Pelosi is choosing to offend her own admitted religious sensibilities in order to do what she believes is the most accurate representation of her congressional district, as is her mandate. The Pope is doing his job, too, by trying to convince her otherwise.

Both are choices. The amount of religion a legislator wishes to add to his legislation is done so at his own peril or his own security in the voting booth. All —religious or otherwise— have to live with the consequences.

You gotta think that the exchange between Pelosi and the Pope had to be hilarious, anyway.

Geithner: Confidence Abounds!

So the Bad Bank thing that isn't a Good Bank because it is supposed to be a Bad Bank and the nearly trillion dollars in guaranteed-ish government spending doesn't resonate to well with the people running the market? What gives?

Didn't they see that a majority of our legislators in the Senate voted for such a stimulus? When have they ever been wrong?

Didn't Obama say this was all going to work? President Obama makes homes for the homeless appear out of thin air; Who are you to say differently, Marketeers?

You've got some nerve going against the President of these United States. I mean, you didn't have to vote for him, but you ought to support him and his plan to put all of these what most describe as "toxic" assets into one bank, and then just do what he says and invest in them.

I mean, "toxic" can have all sorts of cool meanings. Britney Spears? Ring any bells? And think of how many superheroes you know who fell in a toxic vat and were able to lift cars and stuff? Come on man.

This is paraphrasing, but I hear the news on the street today. As it seems, many aren't so keen on the idea of this stimulus bill, which many think is unstructured and unsuitable at this point.

But the bill also passed in the Senate. Which means while our bankers — those who deal with money on a primary basis, rather than other various and far-reaching political agendas — don't agree, or at least, aren't willing to stick their necks out for it anyway.

While faith in a new government economic program is by no means a prerequisite to immediately passing such a bill, it doesn't hurt. Our market relies heavily on mood, which is an odd thing to base livelihood on.

Plus, and this should go without saying, the bankers and brokers on Wall Street that govern the market's ebb and flow are the boneheads who couldn't regulate themselves enough and put us in this mess in the first place.

I can just hear the Founding Fathers now: "Just when the government gives you kids some responsibility, you blow it. You're grounded."

The Palin Pick: Asset or Liability?

Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but in a lot of cases what requires perfect perception is not so much how one sees the outcome but the event transpiring.

John McCain lost the Presidential Election of 2008, as expected. But did he lose it in spite of or due to the biggest curveball of the entire election season? The curveball to which I am referring is Alaskan moose enthusiast Sarah Palin, of course. But the question is whether or not the pitch was a strike in McCain's favor or ball four with the bases loaded that sent Barack Obama to home plate.

I like baseball metaphors. Sue me.

Now, it's obvious that Palin couldn't have helped McCain that much, he did after all suffer a defeat. But looking at where she came from, who she became in the national spotlight, and then what she is today paints a very unique portrait of the Alaskan Baracuda. If not a portrait, a caricature anyway.

One of the reasons for Palin's preliminary potency was the relative obscurity from whence she came. From Wasilla, Alaska to the national spotlight in two years is break-neck speed. Her down-home charm was nothing but appealing. She seemed just like every other soccer mom you see on the weekends, except for her obvious aesthetic values. In lay men's terms, she was a fox, la renard, Babe-raham Lincoln, and a refreshing sight on the rigid arms of McCain.

She shimmered in the limelight. People had never seen anything like it. Among the incoherent ramblings of Romney, Huckabee, and Joe "Who Am I?" Lieberman, Palin came in from left field on a frozen rope. This fresh face was more than unexpected, she was inconceivable. She completely eradicated any semblance of a post-convention bounce that Obama was surely expecting. She dazzled the most casual observers as well as the most invested pundits.

Then the luster faded.

Staunchly conservative, she solidified an overstatedly maverick platform that needed no solidification. For nearly two years, McCain had postured himself to look more conservative than his Senate record indicated. He did so in order to secure the primary nomination that had eluded him in 2000 for that exact reason. But following his subsequent nomination, he kept pace with the new-McCain, who was far more conservative than the old-McCain and the attitude of the rest of the country.

Then came Hollywood. In no way am I advocating for the advancement of Hollywoodian political theories from the likes of Diddy, Lohan, or The View. But when the entire country is dog-piling on you, those are often the most clearly verbalized voices. I've often theorized that the writers at Saturday Night Live must be some of the brightest minds in the country, as it seems they are often the first one's to point out key character flaws in some of our most prominent politicians (see Gerald Ford, George H. W. and George W. Bush...Clinton was too easy). Tina Fey's striking resemblance to and dead-on impression of Sarah Palin revealed a lack of substance that had otherwise been unmentioned up until that point.

It's pretty bad when comedy writers don't have to add anything to one of your interviews and still receive a nation full of laughter.

Her interviews are part of what did her in. She was seen as a viable political candidate until she was skewered by the likes of journalism's playground bully Katie Couric, that bulldog. Speaking of bulldog, those hokey statements about canines wearing cosmetics and hockey mom's and Joe-Alcoholically-Dependent-Six-Pack or whatever that plumber's name was ran wafer thin after about eleven minutes. She was scored well in the swimsuit competition, but in the oral interviews, she fell down and out.

I'm reminded of a colleague's initial thoughts about the candidates' respective Vice-presidential selections. John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau and Stephens Media, where I work. He's a great writer with a vocabulary for days, and from what I hear, an above-average tennis player. His Aug. 28 column talked about the strength of Joe Biden juxtaposed against the weaknesses of Barack Obama. One of the most telling passages from this column talks of Obama and Biden's experience:

They say that Biden, a four-decades member of the U.S. Senate, will help Obama by lending experience. That is to say that Obama, in his own right, lacks experience. Biden's selection invokes a contradiction: Obama presumes to offer a new kind of politics, yet his first real decision embraces the very oldest politics. - John Brummett

Good points. Biden seemed the perfect candidate for Obama for all the wrong reasons. In his Aug. 30 column, Brummett then compares McCain's veep choice to others made by victorious Presidential candidates of the past, namely weak choices like Agnew and Quayle. He also compares Obama's choice to pick a "strong" candidate as it pertains to a poor showing by those candidates who had taken that path previously:

History says Democrats ought to worry whenever they find themselves blessed with an able U.S. senator on the ticket and get word of a Republican vice presidential nominee they've never heard of and whose selection seems an affront to responsible governing. - John Brummett

For those of you keeping score at home, that means if a VP candidate is stronger than his running mate, that usually means bad news for the presidential candidate. This seemed to be the case when Brummett wrote these pieces in late August, as Biden seemed to be the clearly stronger running mate of the two.

But the Palin pick flipped that adage on its head. As Palin began to surge the airwaves and internet, she soon became a much bigger name than Joe Biden had ever been, despite his tendency to have a hazardously explosive comment or two. It no longer became Obama-Biden vs. McCain, as it was on track to be, but it became Obama vs. Palin, with McCain being a wallflower in his own Presidential race. Brummett's observant theory was right, but the variables were switched with McCain's pick.

End result: Obama wins. Was she an asset? Well, McCain didn't win. Was she a liability? Probably not, because as I've said before, this election has been the Democrats' to lose since 2005 and I thought they could have put up a much weaker candidate and still won. But a liability? Most would say "You betcha."

So what is she now, other than a former Vice-presidential candidate? Well she's still got her day job, governing Alaska, and many suspect she'll gain necessary executive experience to stay in the national spotlight in the GOP. But she may be forever marred as an inadequate candidate, a highly-publicized banner of defeat that silently clamors "Don't Pick Me."

Only time will tell how she might parlay her new found notoriety; to be famous or infamous, to be viable or dead on arrival.

The Beginning of the Site: Unfamous First Words

Regard the preliminary article under this article as a prequel to what I hope this site will become: moderate analysis of political nature reflected by American society, for liberal and conservative, for Democrat and Republican, for better and for worse.

Politics are mired with nonobjective monologue that in turn, gets nothing done. Boy, it's great to throw all kinds of bull around with your buddies, but how does that talk fly when it's up against intelligent discourse from a differing view point? It's about creating a dialogue, mixing it up to find better results, because if you think you're right, all the time, in every instance, I think you're an idiot.

But while politics isn't without its fair share of problems, I also find it to be the most fascinating sport in the world. I refer here to famed political consultant Charlie Cook. Cook is a moderate and runs the non-partisan politically handicapping newsletter, The Cook Political Report. I don't so much enjoy the players that often, but I love the game. The game is what shapes and molds our collective destinies. Representation is a powerful thing.

So which ever side of the issue you're on, just consider for a moment someone else's opinion. I guarantee I'll offend you, but you just might learn something.

Oh yeah, and I promise that future posts will have more funny in them. These opening statements are so broad, that it's hard to pin a certain feature to one certain style or whatever the case may be. Wakka wakka.