Palin Goes Rogue on Feminism

[Ziggurat]

Because she's an attention whore?

Rolfe.

Yeah, um... no. That doesn't explain what's going on. It's not because Palin seeks the spotlight that anyone is paying attention to Levi Johnson. He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so. Nobody in the press cares to attack Biden. Is it because Biden is so much better than Palin? Is it because Biden is meek and humble? Don't kid yourself.

 

[Sporanox]

Yeah, um... no. That doesn't explain what's going on. It's not because Palin seeks the spotlight that anyone is paying attention to Levi Johnson. He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so. Nobody in the press cares to attack Biden. Is it because Biden is so much better than Palin? Is it because Biden is meek and humble? Don't kid yourself.

It's Ricky Hollywood these days. Now there's a tried and tested attention whore.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yeah, um... no. That doesn't explain what's going on. It's not because Palin seeks the spotlight that anyone is paying attention to Levi Johnson.

No, it's because he seeks the spotlight.

He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so.

Oh, paranoia, that's original.

 

[Praktik]

Yeah, um... no. That doesn't explain what's going on. It's not because Palin seeks the spotlight that anyone is paying attention to Levi Johnson. He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so.

No he gets coverage cause he's hot, and young and potentially a future star himself. The gossipy type "insider" view he provides is like manna from heaven for the news cycle and ratings.

You know Zig over time I've built up a respect for your words and even though we're very different people I can usually see a solid foundation to your perspective.

But the claim, "a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin" doesn't seem that solidly founded. Are you sure? To my mind they'd love it if Palin was around grabbing headlines for a decade or longer... I mean she's good for business is she not??

Nobody in the press cares to attack Biden. Is it because Biden is so much better than Palin? Is it because Biden is meek and humble? Don't kid yourself.

See a few posts ago I thought we were talking about coverage, not "attacking".

I can agree that Biden gets a lot less coverage cause his star power is eclipsed by competitors and even people on his own team... but I'm not sure the problem is the press "not attacking Biden enough", which is a pretty silly way to put it.

He needs more coverage cause he's actually in charge of stuff

But I thought we established above that in the bizarro media world things like "material connection to important decisions that govern the lives of all americans" can't compete with the star system?

I mean, sure they could "attack" Biden to address some perceived issue of "fairness" - or god forbid they could cover him more substantively in a neutral manner - but would that sell papers and get viewers to tune in?

Maybe on hannity, but even then he'd rather talk about Palin Im sure.

I mean, for godsakes, its Biden!!

 

[fishbob]

This isn't overwhelmingly admiring, but it's probably at least reasonably balanced. http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14915160

. . . At one point she was America’s most popular governor, in that nearly 90% of Alaskans approved of her. But all that changed when Senator John McCain thrust her into the national spotlight.

This is wrong. Palin's local popularity was dropping rapidly well before her VP nomination, as the particulars of her dealings with the state troopers and other issues were coming to light. She was going down in flames when the national Republican party maverickily threw her a parachute.

 

[fishbob]

I think the Economist piece shows that she was doing great in her niche, but she just wasn't ready for prime time.

See my previous post. The Economist writer was wrong - Palin was failing in her niche.
What I want to know is whether the Republican leaderhip is so massively disdainful of the intelligence of the American voter that they selected a good-looking incompetent candidate, or if the Republican leadership is so blinded by good-looking incompetents that they didn't bother to check Palin's credentials.

 

[quadraginta]

See my previous post. The Economist writer was wrong - Palin was failing in her niche.
What I want to know is whether the Republican leaderhip is so massively disdainful of the intelligence of the American voter that they selected a good-looking incompetent candidate, or if the Republican leadership is so blinded by good-looking incompetents that they didn't bother to check Palin's credentials.

My answer to the first part of your question would normally be yes, as that is regularly demonstrated by the antics of both their elected officials and the media icons they revere.

On the other hand, I have wondered since the very announcement of Palin's selection whether or not the Republican Party actually wanted to win this last election cycle. The upside of not being in titular power for the ensuing four years would have been patently obvious even then. A policy of blatant obstructionism when out of power has always played well to their core constituency, so losing wouldn't have any long-term downside, and they were already reeling from eight years of their irrefutable, manifest mismanagement. A loss would present an extended opportunity to spin the results of that mismanagement into the faults of a new administration.

There has always been some element of plausible deniability in her selection as a running mate. The ability, even if the notion is absurd, of touting her as 'qualified' existed in the prevailing atmosphere of "dittohead" conservatism, but few other plausible choices offered the same certainty of defeat.

... and who could know? Maybe the horse would sing.

 

[Ziggurat]

No he gets coverage cause he's hot, and young and potentially a future star himself.

No. The ONLY feature that distinguishes himself from countless others is that he got Palin's daughter pregnant. Nothing else.

 

[Praktik]

Well for the Republican party to have chosen a course deliberately to avoid winning, there would have to be a chance for them to win in the first place - or say, some rising star they'd prefer to keep off center-stage that they ended up running a screen for or something.

The field was pretty week, their electorate was not really enamoured with any of the frontrunners, I'm not really aware of anyone who wasn't in the race who could have put together a winning campaign.

I'm just not sure I buy the plausibility of the premise. I don't think we need to ascribe that kind of shrewdness to them to explain their decision. After all, Palin does have an undeniable appeal. Especially at first, it likely seemed like she was exactly that kind of "rising star" I mentioned above. And they put her center stage, instead of saving her for 2012, because they thought they could win with her.

Hindsight, and the spectacular gaffes and obvious intellectual defecits make it seem like: "woah, why the hell did they pick her? Did they want to lose?"

I'm pretty sure the answer is: "well, it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time"

We should also remember that McCain of '08 had lost much of the lustre he had in his insurgency campaign of 2000. Another question might be: would a different running mate, even a really strong one, have made any appreciable difference to the outcome?

 

[Praktik]

No. The ONLY feature that distinguishes himself from countless others is that he got Palin's daughter pregnant. Nothing else.

This is pretty categorical.

Do you think if the guy who got Bristol pregnant was an un-photogenic stutterer that we'd be seeing as much of that person too?

I highly doubt it. He has a charisma and yes, a story, that the media loves for it is obsessed with the stories of the "insider" and petty interpersonal conflict. This is grist for the mill on all counts.

Sure, we wouldn't know about Levi if he wasn't with Palin's daughter. We probably also wouldn't know that much about him if they were a boring couple still together. Or if Bristol didn't get pregnant.

But my whole point here is essentially that it is missing the mark to ascribe all the coverage of Levi to some petty vindictiveness, when I see the pettiness not rooted in malice, but in the plain fact that Levi fits the template of what the media loves, not what it hates.

It's a soap opera with a hunk in a starring role. At odds with a powerful and wealthy matriarch.

The stories practically write themselves. They can take this to the bank!

 

[Ziggurat]

This is pretty categorical.

Do you think if the guy who got Bristol pregnant was an un-photogenic stutterer that we'd be seeing as much of that person too?

America does not have a shortage of moderately attractive young men who don't stutter. Whether or not there are qualities which could have precluded his current fame, he has zero qualities OTHER than having impregnated Palin's daughter which set him apart from so many others. Moderate attractiveness doesn't do it. A bit of charisma doesn't do it. Even impregnating a teenager doesn't do it. Nothing he has does, except that it was Palin's daughter.

 

[Praktik]

America does not have a shortage of moderately attractive young men who don't stutter. Whether or not there are qualities which could have precluded his current fame, he has zero qualities OTHER than having impregnated Palin's daughter which set him apart from so many others. Moderate attractiveness doesn't do it. A bit of charisma doesn't do it. Even impregnating a teenager doesn't do it. Nothing he has does, except that it was Palin's daughter.

I think this was rather the crux of my argument:

But my whole point here is essentially that it is missing the mark to ascribe all the coverage of Levi to some petty vindictiveness, when I see the pettiness not rooted in malice, but in the plain fact that Levi fits the template of what the media loves, not what it hates.

It's a soap opera with a hunk in a starring role. At odds with a powerful and wealthy matriarch.

The stories practically write themselves. They can take this to the bank!

 

[quadraginta]

Well for the Republican party to have chosen a course deliberately to avoid winning, there would have to be a chance for them to win in the first place - or say, some rising star they'd prefer to keep off center-stage that they ended up running a screen for or something.

The field was pretty week, their electorate was not really enamoured with any of the frontrunners, I'm not really aware of anyone who wasn't in the race who could have put together a winning campaign.

I'm just not sure I buy the plausibility of the premise. I don't think we need to ascribe that kind of shrewdness to them to explain their decision. After all, Palin does have an undeniable appeal. Especially at first, it likely seemed like she was exactly that kind of "rising star" I mentioned above. And they put her center stage, instead of saving her for 2012, because they thought they could win with her.

Hindsight, and the spectacular gaffes and obvious intellectual defecits make it seem like: "woah, why the hell did they pick her? Did they want to lose?"

I'm pretty sure the answer is: "well, it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time"

We should also remember that McCain of '08 had lost much of the lustre he had in his insurgency campaign of 2000. Another question might be: would a different running mate, even a really strong one, have made any appreciable difference to the outcome?

Oh, I agree. I never meant to suggest it was high on my 'plausibility' scale.

OTOH, I deny the hindsight suggestion. After the initial WTF! of her selection it really was one of the possibilities that occurred to me.

Mrs. qg will even back me up on this, and there is NO higher authority.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, um... no. That doesn't explain what's going on. It's not because Palin seeks the spotlight that anyone is paying attention to Levi Johnson. He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so. Nobody in the press cares to attack Biden. Is it because Biden is so much better than Palin? Is it because Biden is meek and humble? Don't kid yourself.

How did they get him onto the stage at the republican national convention?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. The ONLY feature that distinguishes himself from countless others is that he got Palin's daughter pregnant. Nothing else.

This was enough to get him onto the stage at the Republican convention. Seems that he was partially thrust in to the spotlight by palin.

Of course he is hardly unique about being a rather unremarkable individual who is now national news. Wait till he has a reality show.

 

[ponderingturtle]

America does not have a shortage of moderately attractive young men who don't stutter. Whether or not there are qualities which could have precluded his current fame, he has zero qualities OTHER than having impregnated Palin's daughter which set him apart from so many others. Moderate attractiveness doesn't do it. A bit of charisma doesn't do it. Even impregnating a teenager doesn't do it. Nothing he has does, except that it was Palin's daughter.

And what did John and Kate do that earns them national stardom way higher than Levi?

 

[Whiplash]

Oh, paranoia, that's original.

Denial is a bigger problem.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Denial is a bigger problem.

What is this, the "Let's Diagnose Ziggurat" thread?

 

[Sporanox]

This was enough to get him onto the stage at the Republican convention. Seems that he was partially thrust in to the spotlight by palin.

No, Palin isn't responsible for this. Standing on stage does not an interview killathon grant.

The stories practically write themselves. They can take this to the bank!

Problem is, everyone involved knows that the stories are complete garbage. In other words, mainstream news organizations are running tabloid material. Why? Will modern journalism lower their standards that much, simply for cash?

 

[SezMe]

He gets coverage because a significant portion of the press would like to destroy Palin, and will use any tool at hand to do so.

I want to agree with Praktik here. Palin is a freakin' money machine for the press, especially TV. If I read correctly, Hannity's ratings went through the roof when he interviewed her. Even the dying print media benefit by her being in the headlines. Web sites left, right and center STILL have article after article on her.

No, Zig, Palin and the media have a mutually beneficial relationship. The press is at least smart enough not to kill the golden goose.