I’m really happy for Sarah Palin. If anyone says she doesn’t embody the American dream then they’re blinded by their hatred of her. I’ve always stayed away from Sarah Palin as a subject because shooting fish in a barrel isn’t much fun, but now I can come out and cheer on her smashing literary debut.
Quitting her job as Governor halfway through her term because of media/political/legal harassment was obviously genius. There was a springboard passing her by and she had to jump on it without hesitation or risk plummeting back into the cold waters of obscurity.
I don’t think the obscurity part was a real danger, even if she stuck out her term, but she jumped for that springboard with complete abandon. Signing a book deal and having it ready for print within three months makes this leap for stardom all the more inspiring. Many people would love to write a book of any kind and have it published, including me, and I think everyone is impressed by the 1.5 million copies being printed as we speak. I won’t get into details about HarperCollins and Rupert Murdoch; that’ll be left to those looking for that barrel of fish.
Palin then recruited Lynn Vincent of WORLD Magazine to lock in her new life by “helping” her write this book so quickly, but who cares? Most political ventures into the literary world are “guided” by such ghost writers, except of course Barry’s books, but he’s an anomaly.
To top it all off, Sarah has made it crystal clear what direction she’s heading in with the doubly apt title of her life story. “Going Rogue: An American Life” pulls its first and most prominent meaning from where she’s going. It basically refers to the late October 2008 story about Sarah’s rogue-like behavior as she broke out of a constricting campaign that botched her rollout before it went crashing into the dung heap with past failed presidential campaigns. The other meaning of the word “Rogue” in her title is a goodbye message to the people she abandoned in Alaska. Many Alaskan’s remember “Troopergate” for Sarah’s slandering of her ex-brother-in-law as a rogue cop and then the superior who defended him as the same. Her ignoring the obvious meaning of a word she used before the 2008 election to take down a family enemy signifies the completion of her journey from the past to a future as a political media dynamo.
In my opinion, Sarah Palin has embraced the American dream of becoming more than successful, more than rich. She’s becoming famous. I don’t think there will be a foray back into political office for this American celebrity. She’s gonna make Rush seem like a Chihuahua with lipstick. When the media struck her down in 2008, they made her more powerful than anyone can possibly imagine.
I concur, though you write tongue in cheek. Palin is free to do as she wishes. If you don’t agree with her politics, don’t vote for her if she decides to run for President. But the Left’s obsession with her every move is a bit creepy, to say the least. Another figure who is exercising their right to capitalize financially on politics is Michael Moore. To those who claim to hate capitalism, I say turn over your wealth for the collective, lead by example. I actually believe a commune can work on a very local level. If a community wants to create a utopia, I hope they find happiness. The problem arises when state-enforced collectivism is the order of the day. The whole point of America is the free will of the individual; what you decide to do with your free will is up to you. I only oppose those who seek to impose their views on others via legislation.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment Nathan. Michael Moore should definitely show Sarah the ropes if she wants to go big time, but she’ll probably fall somewhere between feature length propaganda films and talk radio. I’m thinking a show on fox, debut in a slot right after Hannity or Huckabee and she’ll do well there. If she works her ass off and develops the ability to debate with guests (not in GOP) intelligently and with charm, she’ll restart her career in a distinguished way.
Your belief in the feasibility of communal existence at the local level, but the danger of it at the federal level is right on. The freedom of the individual must be both economic and social. Michael Moore’s crucifixion of capitalism goes way too far. Capitalism in its highest form rests on what Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall would call a moral foundation. It sounds screwy to liberals, but it does exist because it is still in the interests of successful capitalist enterprises.
As far as you and I are concerned, we feel comfortable with economic and social freedom because it is understood that one engenders the other. The right is fighting a losing battle when they support capitalism, but try to reign in the social freedoms it creates. Then the left fights another losing battle when they increase economic control at the expense of the social freedoms they claim to defend. No.
Social and economic freedom is the only way. The right balance of limited government regulation to stem anarchy is necessary, but the 9th and 10th amendments must be held high in defense of individual and state rights. Unfortunately, the 9th and 10th have been strangled by a submissive judiciary throughout our history.
I saw your site and am following, keep up the good work.