Saturday, August 29, 2015

This Day In History, 2008: Who The Heck Is Sarah Palin?

Image result for Sarah Palin introduction Aug 2008

It was seven years ago today that Senator John McCain introduced Sarah Palin to the country as his running mate, one of the dumbest (and most disastrous) things a presidential candidate has ever done. How did it happen?

First, some history:
In 1945, President Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage; Vice President Harry Truman became president.

In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated; Vice President Lyndon Johnson became president.

In 1974, President Nixon resigned after a scandal; Vice President Gerald Ford became president.

That's three times in 70 years. We've also had a few close calls:

In 1975, President Ford was shot at on two separate occasions. If either of the shooters had had steadier hands, Ford could have died and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller would have become president. (Note: this post originally said the assassination attempts were in 1974. It was actually 1975.)

In 1981, President Reagan actually was shot. He survived, but a few millimeters one way or the other could have resulted in a fatal wound and Vice President George H.W. Bush would have become president eight years earlier than he did.

In 1998, President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. If the political winds had been blowing differently, he could have been removed from office by the Senate and Vice President Al Gore would have become president.

I provide this short history lesson to make the point that the Vice President matters, whether the president is a 72-year-old cancer survivor, as President McCain would have been, or the youngest elected president, as President Kennedy was. I'm also making the point that putting Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket was a really, really stupid thing to do.

Image result for Sarah Palin introduction Aug 2008

To be clear, I don't believe the McCain campaign knowingly put a blithering idiot on the ticket. Their mistake was selecting someone they knew almost nothing about. (I've read a quote from a senior campaign official who said, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, "We assumed she had the knowledge of an average governor." Wrong. Way, way wrong.) As a woman, I'm particularly insulted by the campaign's belief that just because she was a woman, Palin would attract some of Hillary Clinton's disappointed voters. Even if Palin had turned out to be a lot smarter than she is, there's no way that Hillary's Democratic/liberal/progressive constituency would vote for a candidate with Palin's far-right ideology. And ponder this: there were no women at the highest level of the McCain campaign. If there had been one or more women in the room when the Palin decision was made, would their input have resulted in a different decision? Possibly.

In 2007, Palin entertained top conservative pundits at the governor’s mansion.

So how did this come about, really? As is often the case, there's an intriguing backstory. Writer Jane Mayer tells the whole story in a New Yorker article dated October 27, 2008. You can read it here; this is the good part, starting in the summer of 2007, just a few months after Palin was inaugurated as governor:

Palin was wooing a number of well-connected Washington conservative thinkers. In a stroke of luck, Palin did not have to go to the capital to meet these members of “the permanent political establishment”; they came to Alaska. Shortly after taking office, Palin received two memos from Paulette Simpson, the Alaska Federation of Republican Women leader, noting that two prominent conservative magazines—The Weekly Standard, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, and National Review, founded by William F. Buckley, Jr.—were planning luxury cruises to Alaska in the summer of 2007, which would make stops in Juneau. Writers and editors from these publications had been enlisted to deliver lectures to politically minded vacationers. “The Governor was more than happy to meet these guys,” Joe Balash, a special staff assistant to Palin, recalled.

Fred Barnes recalled being “struck by how smart Palin was, and how unusually confident. Maybe because she had been a beauty queen, and a star athlete, and succeeded at almost everything she had done.” It didn’t escape his notice, too, that she was “exceptionally pretty.”

By the time the Weekly Standard pundits returned to the cruise ship, Paulette Simpson said, “they were very enamored of her.” 

The other journalists who met Palin offered similarly effusive praise: Michael Gerson called her “a mix between Annie Oakley and Joan of Arc.” The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska’s political circles. According to Simpson, Senator Stevens told her that “Kristol was really pushing Palin” in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on “Fox News Sunday” that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket.” He described her as “fantastic,” saying that she could go one-on-one against Obama in basketball, and possibly siphon off Hillary Clinton’s supporters. He pointed out that she was a “mother of five” and a reformer. “Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin,” he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, “Can we please get off Sarah Palin?”

The next day, however, Kristol was still talking about Palin on Fox. “She could be both an effective Vice-Presidential candidate and an effective President,” he said. “She’s young, energetic.” On a subsequent “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol again pushed Palin when asked whom McCain should pick: “Sarah Palin, whom I’ve only met once but I was awfully impressed by—a genuine reformer, defeated the establishment up there. It would be pretty wild to pick a young female Alaska governor, and I think, you know, McCain might as well go for it.” On July 22nd, again on Fox, Kristol referred to Palin as “my heartthrob.” He declared, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next three months without her on the ticket.” 

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at National Review, had a more elemental response. In an online column, he described Palin as “a former beauty-pageant contestant, and a real honey, too. Am I allowed to say that? Probably not, but too bad.”

Image result for sarah palin at Belmont

A bunch of (male) conservative writers/pundits went up to Alaska and got distracted by a shiny object in a push-up bra. They made such a fuss about her that she ended up on the Republican ticket without anyone bothering to determine whether she could form a coherent sentence, much less do the job of Vice President. Would any of it have happened if Sarah Palin looked like Madeleine Albright or Janet Reno? If she hadn't been an "exceptionally pretty" beauty queen? A "real honey"? A "babe," as she was described by Rush Limbaugh? No to all of the above. A woman who isn't a "babe" would be laughed out of the room (and possibly off the ticket) after something like this:



Sarah's days as a politician are long over, notwithstanding Donald Trump's suggestion that he would put her in his cabinet. (If you think that's a realistic scenario I have two words for you: Senate Confirmation.) She's still entertaining, however, and this is almost certainly not my last post about her or her family members. Any bets on who's the father of Sarah's soon-to-be third grandchild? 

It's Not Just Josh Duggar

Can this possibly be true? In a blog post at the Christianity Today website titled "My pastor is on the Ashley Madison list," author Ed Stetzer says that as many as 400 Christian leaders may resign their positions tomorrow:

Based on my conversations with leaders from several denominations in the U.S. and Canada, I estimate that at least 400 church leaders (pastors, elders, staff, deacons, etc.) will be resigning Sunday.

Wow. You can read the article here

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Hair Has A Mind Of Its Own

Sunday morning update: I'm adding this picture, which, believe it or not, is a cake.


Brian Snyder/Reuters

And, just because I can, here's a picture of The Donald wearing the actual hat.

Image result for Donald Trump hat
Jan Kruger/Getty Images

Original Post:
Question: Why is The Donald always wearing that baseball cap?

Answer: To avoid this:

Image result for Donald Trump hair

From an article at the New Yorker, read it here.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

"There Was Always Something A Bit Odd About Josh"

Update #2, Thursday morning: It turns out People did produce a cover that features the three American heroes; it was on copies sent out to subscribers.

Friendship of the American Heroes Who Prevented Attack on Train in France

Mid-morning update: Remember the Tiger Woods scandal a few years ago, when women started coming out of the woodwork to say they had been with Tiger? It's beginning to look like this is going to be like that. For example:

over

The New York Daily News ponders it all, read it here.

Original post:
Issue dated September 7, 2015
Josh Duggar Cheating Scandal: Inside His Shocking Double Life

I'd figured People would probably go for it, with a second Duggar scandal cover in a row, and here it is. Based on the "teaser" article currently posted on People.com, however, which states that "The Duggar family didn't respond to requests for comment," and quotes merely a Duggar family source, a source close to Anna and another source with ties to the family, I'm sure there's not much new information in the actual story. Now, please, please, please, let this be the last cover story about the Duggars. Ever.

And, really, People? Why couldn't you have put the three wonderful young Americans who hogtied a terrorist on a train (THEY SAVED HUNDREDS OF LIVES!) front and center as the main cover story? Didn't you think that would sell well? Even as I was expecting a full Sex Scandal 101 cover, I'd been hoping that the guys would be the main story with Josh as a sidebar, or maybe that People would wait until next week for the American Heroes story. But no. A sex scandal wins out every time.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

This Day In History: Born To Run




Has it really been 40 years? Yes, it was August 25, 1975 when Bruce Springsteen released Born To Run.



Baby, we were born to run!

Sunday, August 23, 2015

"Inside Baseball"

Occasionally here at Writing The World, I point out how misleading a magazine headline can be. For example, People frequently writes headlines that sound as if they've interviewed the subject, when in fact they're just cribbing together quotes from "sources" and "insiders."

Now the New York Daily News has some info about how the current cover story, featuring two of the Duggar sisters, came about. Yes, the headline, "ONLY IN People / THE DUGGARS NOW / LIFE AFTER SCANDAL" implies an exclusive interview, but No, there wasn't one. The Daily News explains, using the term "write-around":

The scandal-scarred Duggar family graces the latest cover of People magazine with the headline “Only in People: The Duggars now, life after scandal.” There’s just one problem — the family refused to speak directly to the magazine to avoid being asked about Josh Duggar’s molestation confession, a source close to the magazine tells Confidenti@l.

“They did not want to discuss the scandal, only the future of the family. They wanted to avoid it altogether, which is completely ridiculous,” says our source. “How can they do a cover story and not address the issue at hand?”

We’re told People, which has had a long relationship with the family, approached the Duggars about doing “the first big interview since the confession” and since the TLC show was canceled.

“The Duggars said we would love to, however we will not address Josh’s trouble,” says our source. “People tried to negotiate and eventually played hardball, saying we’re doing the cover with or without you.”

The result was a write-around, with most quotes from a family insider.

Making matters worse is that while this week’s magazine is on stands, it leaked that Josh was a member of adult cheating website Ashley Madison, and that his information, like that of many site users, was hacked.

“That may actually work in People’s favor, because if you see that on a newsstand you’ll assume it’s inside the magazine,” laughs our source.

The "source" is right - People lucked out on the timing. The new cover certainly looks as if it's all about Josh's adultery and porn addiction, but in fact the new issue was published Wednesday morning, a few hours before the "Josh Duggar is on Ashley Madison" scandal broke in the press. 

This Day In History: I Got You Babe

From The Washington Monthly, on this day 50 years ago, I Got You Babe was the number one song in America.



Enjoy!

Saturday, August 22, 2015

3rd Racing Forum

Sunday morning update: Paul prevails and Kentucky will hold a caucus, as long as the Paul campaign pays for it. Politico has the details.  

Original post: 
Last week, Charles Krauthammer published his 3rd GOP Racing Forum, written a few days after the big GOP debates on August 6. To review, this is how things looked to Krauthammer on March 27, when he published Racing Forum #1 (and no one was talking about Donald Trump,) with odds of winning the GOP nomination: 

First Tier
Marco Rubio, 3-1
Jeb Bush 7-2
Scott Walker 4-1

Second Tier
Chris Christie 12-1
Ted Cruz 15-1
Mike Huckabee 15-1
Rand Paul 30-1

Longer Shots
Carly Fiorina 50-1
Dr. Ben Carson, odds of winning: none.

What about Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and John Kasich? Krauthammer says they're "still below the radar. If they surface, they'll be featured in the next racing form."

When the second edition was published on June 12, things looked like this, divided into categories but with no odds: 

Top Tier
1. Jeb Bush
2. Scott Walker
3. Marco Rubio

Polls Well But Can't Win
4. Rand Paul
5. Dr. Ben Carson

Second Tier, With A Chance To Jump
6. Ted Cruz
7. John Kasich
8. Carly Fiorina

Second Tier, In Need Of A Miracle
9. Rick Perry
10. Chris Christie
11. Mike Huckabee

Now, in GOP Racing Forum #3, Krauthammer has narrowed the field to six candidates, none of which is named Donald Trump: 

The first tier is unchanged, shown with odds of winning the GOP nomination
Marco Rubio, 3-1
Jeb Bush, 4-1
Scott Walker, 4-1

Second Tier (and rising, with a high ceiling for each) 
Ted Cruz, 9-1
John Kasich, 9-1
Carly Fiorina, 9-1

What about Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee? Toast. Krauthammer doesn't even mention them by name.

Read the entire article, including some thoughts about the Democratic race, here

By the way, on her show last night, Rachel Maddow said she sees a strong possibility that Rand Paul may be the first Republican to exit the race, possibly as early as this week-end. It's tied to the Kentucky law that prohibits a candidate from running for two jobs on the same ballot and Senator Paul's efforts to get around that law. The Chicago Tribune has a good explanation; read it here

As I've said before, as soon as candidates start dropping out I'll start a new list, title still undecided. (The "Biggest Loser" list? The "Faced Reality and Caved" list? The "You're Fired!" list? So many possibilities...) Here's how the current lists look today: 

Declared GOP Candidates, in order of their official announcement:
  1. Ted Cruz (March 23) 
  2. Rand Paul (April 7)
  3. Marco Rubio (April 14)
  4. Dr. Ben Carson (May 3) 
  5. Carly Fiorina (May 4) 
  6. Mike Huckabee (May 5) 
  7. Rick Santorum (May 27)
  8. George Pataki (May 28)
  9. Lindsey Graham (June 1) 
  10. Rick Perry (June 4) 
  11. Jeb Bush (June 15)
  12. Donald Trump (June 16) 
  13. Bobby Jindal (June 24) 
  14. Chris Christie (June 30)
  15. Scott Walker (July 13) 
  16. John Kasich (July 21) 
  17. Jim Gilmore (July 30) 
Officially Not Running
Rob Portman (Dec 2)
Paul Ryan (Jan 12)
Mitt Romney (Jan 30)
Rick Snyder (May 7)
John Bolton (May 14) 
Mike Pence (May 20) 
Bob Ehrlich (August 4)

Days until Election Day: 443

Friday, August 21, 2015

Yes, There Will Be Schadenfreude

Lots of schadenfreude. When People published their new cover, at 7.00 a.m. central time Wednesday, they had no idea that their headline, "LIFE AFTER SCANDAL," would, in a matter of hours, be both eerily prescient and woefully out-of-date. "Josh's life in seclusion"? You have no idea.

Josh Duggar Molestation Scandal: 19 Kids and Counting Stars Stunned by Backlash

What to say about the Duggars now? Thoughts:

There's no eraser on the internet. Josh first posted his apology on the family's website shortly after lunchtime. Not too many minutes later, he, his parents and/or their PR person apparently decided he shouldn't cop to being addicted to porn and the statement was taken down to be revised. Gawker tracked the edits, which also deleted the reference to Satan and to Josh's illegal activities as a teenager:

Josh Duggar’s Apology: “I Have Been the Biggest Hypocrite Ever” [Updated]

Unfortunately (for Josh,) even in the short time the original statement was live, several websites grabbed screen shots that preserve the original language, and most of the articles I've seen are now describing Mr. Duggar as both an adulterer and an internet porn addict. Once it's out there, it's out there. There's no going back. 

Clueless. Before the new scandal went public there were reports that parents Jim Bob and Michelle were trying to get themselves back on television, pitching a new "reality" show featuring them as, wait for it, counselors to victims of sexual abuse. If true, this represents a mind-boggling level of clueless self-regard that would get them not only laughed out of, but sneered out of any pitch meeting. 

In the original People cover story, they're described as "stunned" by the backlash to Josh's child molestation scandal, because they "truly felt people would understand and eventually be okay with it." They're still stunned this morning: 


Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are "absolutely stunned" in the wake of their eldest son Josh's confession that he had cheated on wife Anna and had an addiction to pornography, a source with ties to the family tells PEOPLE.

"This wasn't something they ever imagined was possible," says the source. "They so strictly limit their exposure to these sorts of outside influences – from websites to even the sort of television they watch, if they turn on the TV at all – that they were absolutely baffled by how this could have been possible."

It seems to me that it's time for these people to step out of the spotlight, stop trying to rebuild their brand and focus on getting a clue, a real clue, about what's really going on with their family. Josh is clearly a very troubled young man, and I believe it's at least possible that his actions as an adult are driven by what happened when he was growing up. The "no big deal, Josh is fine, you must forgive your brother" way his sexual assault on his sisters was dealt with appears to have left Josh more screwed up than before and I'd bet everyone in that family is scarred by it. 


Image result for JOsh Duggar sarah palin

Please, please, please stop telling other people how to live. As I said when "abstinence advocate" Bristol Palin announced her second out-of-wedlock pregnancy, if your brand is built on purity, and in particular if you're telling others how to live, you'd better be practicing what you preach. If you're not, you're going to be excoriated. The Duggars are not just a large family with an old-fashioned lifestyle. They're politically active in support of a rigid, hateful and intolerant ideology. They have supported far-right politicians, recorded robocalls in support of discrimination and in Josh's case, worked for a non-profit that supports hate and intolerance in the name of so-called traditional family values. (Yes, Josh, you are a hypocrite. And yes, this is snark, but has Mike Huckabee had anything to say about this yet?) For the Duggars, it's time to stop worrying about what other people are doing and start cleaning up the mess in their own home. 

Finally, to Josh's wife and the other women and girls in this family, none of this is your fault. NONE OF THIS IS YOUR FAULT. The most troubling thing I've read in the tsunami of reporting on this story is this quote in one of the many articles at people.com

The source says that from their knowledge of Josh and Anna and the Duggar family, "no way is she leaving him" – adding that it would not come as a surprise if "on some level" Anna tries to "absorb some of the blame." 

"Maybe not publicly, ever, but privately, there will be some suggestion of whether or not she should have been more aware of the pressures Josh was under, of the issues he was facing, and how she could have better counseled him or helped him," says the source. 

If Anna Duggar chooses to stay with her husband that's no one's business but hers, but for someone, anyone, to suggest that this is in any way her fault is reprehensible and rage-inducing. Not only is it unfair to her but it deflects some of the responsibility off of Josh. At Salon.com, Brooke Arnold tells what it was like growing up in the "women are chattel/men rule the world" mind-set in families like the Duggars and it's chilling. (Read it here.) 

This entire situation is sad on every level and frankly I wonder if anyone in the Duggar family can ever really recover from it. I'm sincere when I say that I hope they can and do. I'm also sincerely hoping they'll step back, relinquish the spotlight, get real help and let everyone heal in private.