Wednesday, April 14, 2010
WHO PAYS FOR PALIN?
At moments in the dark of night, as the Teabaggers are revealed as the creation of cynical for-profit lobbying firms, I have to ask myself who the fuck is running Sarah Palin? Idiocy of this intensity does not occur by random osmosis. Moving across the country on her zigzag Overdrive tour, the woman is on TV almost every fucking hour. She made $12 million in the last nine months, and even Tina Fey has become part of the hype. This is more than pandering to a cult of belligerence ignorance. It’s putting the cult on a sold mega-corporate foundation. Palin is the Hannah Montana of modern politics. A confluence of fact and fiction, fantasy and reality, where nothing is what it seems, but the customers are too bemused to know what’s happening. Glenn Beck may go toe to toe with the black helicopters and the Godless Bolsheviks, but Pain is making the mindset a spectacle. It takes a Disney to bring on Hannah Montana, so who’s doing the Disney for Klondike Barbie? Take a look at her $100,000 speaking contract. The document was not cooked up by some grifters out of Fairbanks.
Very soon Palin shows will have flashing lights, fireworks, and smoke. She’ll become the Mothership at appearances rapidly evolving into high-tech Nuremburg rallies, outstripping anything Mick Jagger tried, even at his most imperial. I get a whiff of mega-church and Michael Jackson madness, but quantum more baleful. Or maybe I’m insane.
No one in the media is asking close to the right questions. What is Palin? What entity is financing her seemingly random, Godzilla progress? And what does that entity want? Power? Profit? Control? Some think-tank nightmare of a psycho-civilized brainwashed oligarchy? All of the above? Keith Olbermann may call her an idiot, but never wonders why she’s really being inflicted on us.
We’re being force fed a phenomenon here, neighbours, and I’d really like to know why and to what real end? It’s not often – in fact never – that Doc40 quotes the National Journal, we make the exception when someone called Paul Starobin expends one hell of lot of words on a ploddingly devious, neocon quasi-intellectual case that Sarah Palin is…um…smarter than the average. But the average what? President? Sideshow? Popstar? What? Starobin doesn’t so much as ask. He talks in terms of the presidency but never quite nails it as the ultimate Palin goal.
“The bigger problem is that Palin, notwithstanding her deficiencies in knowledge, is not without a set of beliefs about the United States and its global mission. Convictions can come from books but also, and usually more powerfully, from life experience.”
“Harsh criticism of Palin is not necessarily "persecution," as her sympathizers maintain. Although some of the attacks are on the loony side -- the Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan has assiduously raised suspicions that Trig is her grandson, not her son, thus making Palin out to be a brazen liar and a complete phony, on top of being an ignoramus -- so it goes in American politics. Grover Cleveland, in the 1884 campaign, endured taunts that he had fathered a bastard son. Evidently, there is something about Palin that drives her critics crazy. But if they can pause for breath, they might take a lesson from history as to the wisdom of mocking a political figure for a supposed lack of intelligence. The caricature of Eisenhower as Donald Duck did not stop him from twice defeating, in Electoral College landslides, the cerebral Adlai Stevenson, the darling of the intellectual crowd. The Georgetown set's view of Reagan as "an amiable dunce" did not keep voters from giving the Gipper landslide wins over Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer known for his propensity to micromanage, in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984. And Bush won re-election over John Kerry in 2004 despite being pilloried as Cheney's puppet. Whereas Democrats tend to criticize GOP figures as dolts, Republicans tend to criticize prominent Democratic politicians, from Gore to Kerry to Obama, not as dummies but as reincarnated Stevensons -- elite, egghead types out of touch with mainstream America. As results suggest, this is not an exchange with an obvious payoff for Democrats. Palin's critics would be wise to marshal the best assault they can on the basis of her convictions -- on the substance of her vision of America and her policies for fulfilling that vision. This is unimpeachable ground for an inquest. So what if she scribbles crib notes on the palm of her hand: She's doing the scribbling, and the only really interesting question concerns what she is writing down.” Click here for the whole weird thing.
Click here for a pdf of the Palin contract
Click here for Frankie Laine
The secret word is Disconnect
Posted by Mick at 4/14/2010 08:14:00 PM