"Your Department of Law"
Kate Snow of ABC News scores the Big Get with Sarah Palin, and elicits this amazing quotation:
as for whether another pursuit of national office...would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations."I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.
Snow's droll, too-true follow-up line:
There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.
What there is is a legal counsel. He or she counsels but does not "throw" anything "out."
Ten years ago, it was de rigueur for news organizations to go to every Democrat under the sun and press them on their views of Bill Clinton's carrying on with Monica Lewinsky. May we expect the same full-court press on every Republican, to see how they feel about having campaigned, not so long ago, to put this woman one 73-year-old heartbeat away from the Oval Office?
Shall we hear more from Bill Kristol, he who granted his imprimatur to the Governor way back when she was peaceably ensconced in Juneau?
Or Ross Douthat, who on Monday informed his NYT readers that "Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal -- that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard." And that: "Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true."
Greg Marx at CJR refutes Douthat's faux populism. Sarah Palin is beloved by the Republican base, period. There's no evidence that anyone else loves her (besides Tina Fey and comedy-lovers everywhere).
Truth is, anyone can be a great success story on the op-ed page of the NYT even if he's been to Harvard.
Thanks for highlighting that for us, Todd. That really made my day. Still chuckling over it.
Yep. Just check with your Department of Law there. Ya betcha!
-- ARG
July 7, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin is beloved by detached GOP power-brokers who have nothing but contempt for Americans. This is a political estate that truly believes it can put a blowfish in the Oval Office if it campaigns with the right camera angles and constant, constant spin-control. Regardless of the immediate trigger for her self-demolition, Sarah Palin had long-ago crossed the insipidity line, where average American voters recoil from naked puppetry and sound-bite Eveready bunnies.
July 7, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's sound-bite Everyready bunnies with a wink.
July 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It worked for Reagan and for Bu$hII so why wouldn't it work for the Witch from Wasilla? Besides, the base could care less what anyone outside their political covenant think, just as they did for Bu$hII. And look what he got away with by a Congress that purposely stepped back and ignored his excesses. Just think what would happen if Palin gets her finger near the BUTTON and menopause strikes.
July 7, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough already with the sexism. What's wrong with Palin is not her chromosomes.
July 7, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And enough already with the competition. What's wrong with the media isn't their lack of fairness in attacking one party or the other in equal measure, it is their complete lack of judgement and discernment in reporting.
You just are not getting it. When you blogged about the firing of Dan Froomkin you didn't get it either. You called it as a "firing of the liberal" which of course, was as far from the truth as anything could be. Dan Froomkin wasn't fired because he was a "liberal" (which he claims he isn't) he was fired because he had the temerity to practice good journalism which is not equally bad treatment of both sides, but adversarial and skeptical treatment of claims made by both sides.
Journalists are killing newspapers and they just can't see it. Both you and Ezra Klein calling for government subsidies of newspapers as though the problem isn't bad journalism but lack of money.
July 7, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you insult her without insulting all women? Not too inventive, huh?
July 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god this woman is a flat-out idiot. Please please PLEASE let her fade away into an Alaskan sunset.
July 7, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think by now someone would have gotten this woman an 8th grade civics textbook.
July 7, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "...her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true."
MY COMMENT: Hasn't this been proven many times over?
FROM WIKIPEDIA: (excerpt) ...Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment above the local bank building in Tampico, Illinois...Reagan attended Eureka College...
SOURCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
July 7, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I think it was any 'woman' can grow up to be president....
I am relieved that she has put herself farther out of reach of the presidency.
I read that she contacted Cheney before she made her announcement. The fact that she connects with Cheney creeps me out beyond belief. Quelle nightmare. The idea of another puppet for Cheney to use for his whims is horrific.
I am never going to stop demanding accountability for the crimes of the last 8 years.
July 7, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why stop at 8 years, Synch?
Let's remember that our present economic mess -- perhaps the most important issue facing us -- began longer ago than that. And included the Democrat Bill Clinton. As I've pointed out in the past, Kevin Phillips wrote of this in BAD MONEY, but here's a more recent article describing same.
July 7, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad that the smugness of FNC is evident on the left as well as the right.
How many of you know what the Dept of Justice is called in Alaska?
Yep.
It's called The Department of Law.
I'm not a Palin apologist by any means. And the Dept of Justice isn't set up to protect the President. (Well, at least that's what we are told anyway -- but who knows what abuse has gone on in the name of both parties? ...or do I have to remind people of the abuses from the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and the like?) But before everyone pounces on this easily explained misstep, people should be thinking more clearly. Is it possible that she was simply using the AK name? I think so. The focus should not be on the Depts name, but what it does.
There are plenty of ignorant statements by Palin to go after, that have no alternative explanation, than this one. The left should grow up and not look like the right. Because when the left looks like the right, the middle gets confused.
July 7, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She not only got the name wrong--a governor can be expected to know that the U. S. is not Alaska--but the function. As I wrote, "What there is [in the White House] is a legal counsel. He or she counsels but does not 'throw' anything 'out.'"
July 7, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that she got the function wrong -- at least in theory, if not in practice.
However, your blog really wanted to make light of her getting the name wrong. And you know what? People sometimes misspeak -- even stupid ones.
Or did you also want to write a blog when Obama talked of visiting 57 states (with one left to go)... and that didn't include HI and AK?
Like I said, there's so much real fodder that Palin provides, there is no reason to pounce on this.
Because, truth be told, I bet you didn't know that there was something called a Dept of Law in AK before you wrote this blog. Indeed, I believe you thought she "made up" a department and only now are you backpedaling because you've been shown a plausible reason why she might have stated it as such.
July 7, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting the function wrong is a pretty significant error (although I would expect a VP candidate to have heard of the "Department of Justice" at some point.)
As much as she might like to think so, the Departments of Law and/or Justice are not responsible for defending her against allegations of misconduct. That should be pounced on.
July 7, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about the focus. But people are going on the "Dept of Law".
I'm tired of bloggers spouting off trying for "gotcha moments" when it often shows a lack of understanding themselves.
July 7, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU'RE TIRED OF BLOGGERS GOING FOR "GOTCHA MOMENTS?!"
Oh, that is rich. I am laughing so hard my Department of Stomach Muscles is getting sore!
July 7, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Department of Stomach Muscles?
hahahahahaha
Well CVille you are much to sophisticated but I must render unto you the Dayly Governmental Departments Award for this here TPMCafe site given from all of me to all of you.hahahahaha
July 7, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, dd. Line of the day.
July 7, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honored, as always, although those muscles are still cramping!
July 7, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
you all need to talk to LisB and Synch so you can learn from them.
=D
July 7, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the TPM-ditto heads all heard from.
Remind me again what you guys hate about FNC?
You act like the gang over there.
It improves nothing. But you get to be self-congratulatory.
Please do grow up.
July 7, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death.
July 7, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I hear Lis and Stnc calling you.
Why not take a page out of their playbook?
July 7, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, please do go back to your exercises so you won't run out of the chat room the next time I show up. thanks!
July 7, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please talk to LisB and Synch so you can learn from them.
July 7, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy now, clearthinker. You lose your bet. If you were right, I would not have written: "He or she counsels but does not 'throw' anything 'out.'"
July 7, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your title points to the obvious "joke".
Say what you want, the focus of your article should have been a lack of understanding of how government functions, not the cheap joke. The tone of your blog is to emphasize the "Dept of Law".
July 7, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying there are 57 states after being on the road for months almost every day is not the same as Sarah Palin and "the Department of Law". Getting the facts wrong, purposely or just because she doesn't know, is pure Palin. Obama, whether you like him or not, knows his shit.
And it's too late for the Left. While they have different goals for this country, their reaction and treatment of the opposition and their ideas is the same. Well, actually, the Left is less racist.
July 7, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your statements are utterly without proof.
You simply want to assume that Palin didn't misspeak while Obama was going to be given a break.
As I said, with plenty of real things to pounce on, that people are pouncing on "Dept of Law" shows their desire for spectacle rather than improving the political dialogue.
July 7, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your point is that Obama really didn't know how many states there are in the US? And that Palin, who answered a perfectly legitimate question (later termed a "gotcha") as to what she reads, had absolutely no answer. Well, that's not fair. She had an answer, "All of 'em."
Yeah. Also.
If you are trying to say that Palin is smarter than she gets credit for, I simply ask you to cite some evidence. If you want to prove that Obama is so dumb he doesn't know how many states are in our country, the burden of that proof is on you.
BTW, What is your opinion on Palin's large family, and her philosophy on no birth control? Just askin'
July 7, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille,
In the land of adults, people can comment on what the topic is, rather than bring invective into it. See, for example, your pointless comment above that added nothing to the discussion. Please talk to LisB and Synch so you can learn from them. You are obsessed with me and apparently didn't either read my comment or couldn't understand it.
It's quite clear that most people were trying to tar and feather Palin for talking about a department they didn't think existed. These smug people would rather deal with emotions rather than reason. I was quite clear that Obama's comment was a result of misspeaking and it's quite possible that Palin's name for the DOJ was just as much of a misspoken statement.
Then you make up a strawman argument about what I am "saying" about Palin.
Here is what I'm saying: most people that tried to jump on the quote "Dept of Law" had no clue that AK's DOJ was called that. But I'm sure it made you feel good to feel superior for something relatively minor.
Few stories commented on the real issue: that the DOJ is supposed to corruptly protect the president and his staff. There is ample evidence that the DOJ has stepped outside it's bounds under both Republicans and Democrats. The sad thing is that in practice, Palin may well be correct.
It's sad that your emotional state prevents a clear headed reading of my words. But that's your burden not mine.
I will only point out that as both you and Palin believe in popping out more children -- you may have more in common with her than may make you comfortable.
July 7, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please talk to LisB and Synch so you can learn from them.
July 7, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really are attention starved! Nice to see you again. Care to post this comment over and over? Thanks!
July 7, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? You do.
=D
July 8, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to say thanks for that information. I had been taking shots at her for not knowing what the Justice Department was called, but if that's the nomenclature in Alaska, it's an understandable mis-statement, especially when salmon fishing.
And I agree with your statement that most people ridiculing her for it -- including Gitlin and, I might add, the reporter on the story herself -- did not know that fact. The response hasn't been outrage at her misunderstanding about the DOJ's role, it's been mocking her for thinking there was a Department of Law. Trying to backtrack from it now is just intellectually dishonest.
July 8, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin represents the American Ideal...as described by HL Mencken.
July 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, was the question related to another pursuit of national office and she answered from the perspective of having won the White House?
That's an answer only a dead fish could love.
July 7, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out,"
Did Palin just admit that the kinds of things she has done in Alaska are the kind of things a legal review before the fact would have tossed out as being unethical or illegal??
July 7, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people link to "printer friendly" pages? Why, oh, why?
July 8, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Douthat can't have Palin as president, is Britney Spears OK? She's successful and didn't go to Columbia or Harvard.
July 8, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
(zing)
July 8, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope Mrs. Palin means the DOJ Public Corruption Division. That's the subagency that, say, pursues officials who get their lakeside houses built free by contractors working on publicly-funded sports arenas.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/the-house-that-todd-built/
July 8, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if she called it the Dept of Moose Manure, the woman is a bimbo. My apologies to bimbos everywhere. Many of them are sincere and self-aware.
July 8, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink