Palin to step down as governor

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Actually, I don't think it means anything about the effectiveness of her view; just the effectiveness of her teaching it. The fact that Sarah Palin couldn't get her daughter to listen to her doesn't make abstinence any more or less the answer.

Based on that alone, you're right. I suppose I went into making my statements with the assumption that most rational people already know it to be true that "abstinence only" sex education has been a flop. Further, that someone still clinging to that point of view had a pregnant, unwed, teenager in her family, made it look all the worse. My wording was poor, attributing the failure of her position to the pregnancy of her daughter, when I really should have said it another way. It's true that "abstinence only" sex education is not a failure simply because of Bristol Palin, it was a failure long before that ever came to pass.

As stated before, this was not a major reason to keep Palin from being VP. In the big scheme of things, it's a minor point.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Actually, I don't think it means anything about the effectiveness of her view; just the effectiveness of her teaching it. The fact that Sarah Palin couldn't get her daughter to listen to her doesn't make abstinence any more or less the answer.

If you can't get your kids to listen, your message becomes moot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well it doesn't sound like she's planning to go away.

My Way News - Palin links resignation to 'higher calling'
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Outgoing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday laid the groundwork to take on a larger, national role after leaving state government, citing a "higher calling" with the aim of uniting the country along conservative lines.

A day after surprising even her closest friends by announcing she would step down as Alaska governor more than a year before her term was up, the controversial hockey mom was still keeping details of her future plans under wrap. But in a statement posted on Palin's Facebook account, she suggested that she had bigger plans and a national agenda she planned to push after she resigns at the end of the month.

"I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint," she said.

Palin also cast herself as a victim and blasted the media, calling the response to her announcement "predictable" and out of touch.

"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country," the statement said. "And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

Palin's personal spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, confirmed to The Associated Press that the Facebook posting was written by the governor.

The abruptness of her announcement and the mystery surrounding her plans has fed widespread speculation. But Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law." ...

[thesloppy]

Man, I'm a self-admitted politico-hating asshole, but how can you NOT want to blast that lady? Resiging via condescending Facebook post? Top notch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Resiging via condescending Facebook post? Top notch.

Umm, she resigned at a press conference. She simply added some more info about her future via Facebook.

[larrymcg421]

What's crazy is her defamation threat.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What's crazy is her defamation threat.

Not really.

If it's not true and they know it isn't but run with it anyway ...

edit to add: Consider this advice for bloggers from the Wisconsin Bar Association (ain't the interwebz grand sometimes?)
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cf...ONTENTID=56211
... A public official or public figure10 claiming he or she has been defamed and seeking damages is subject to a higher standard than a private figure plaintiff. A public figure defamation plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that the speaker made the allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice - that is, either with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement.11 Proof of actual malice is required because public officials and public figures have greater opportunities to effectively counter false statements than do private individuals and, thus, they must meet a higher standard to prove a defamation claim

I can't imagine there'd be any problem proving either of those things with any number of bloggers.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol - this just keeps getting better

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really.

If it's not true and they know it isn't but run with it anyway ...

That's a pretty tough burden, don't you think? How do you prove they knew it wasn't true?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's a pretty tough burden, don't you think? How do you prove they knew it wasn't true?

or with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement

Do you really believe there's more than the slightest concern about the truth (vs just a good juicy rumor) with much of the blogosphere?

[larrymcg421]

Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth.

Right, but the reckless disregard standard isn't failure to verify a source or follow other proffessional standards. You still have to prove that they had actual doubt as to the truth of the statement.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm, she resigned at a press conference. She simply added some more info about her future via Facebook.

She's still Governor, so she's still resigning in my book. I think we'd agree that as Governor she likely still has access to better resources than Facebook....although we are talking about Alaska.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You still have to prove that they had actual doubt as to the truth of the statement.

Again, given the nature of loudmouth bloggers, I have a hard time thinking they've all been tightlipped about any doubts. And I really don't believe half of them believe even half the shit they post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

She's still Governor, so she's still resigning in my book. I think we'd agree that as Governor she likely still has access to better resources than Facebook....although we are talking about Alaska.

And she would then be ripped for using state resources to discuss her personal future plans. Hell, even she doesn't seem to have dumb enough to step into that particular trap.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And she would then be ripped for using state resources to discuss her personal future plans. Hell, even she doesn't seem to have dumb enough to step into that particular trap.

No denying that, but she COULD conceivably save herself a shred of her own dignity, right? Oh wait dignity...politics...press, what am I talking about?

[SirFozzie]

I've held off mostly in this conversation, because I wanted to see if there was more info before I said anything.

Now, that we have more information, these are my thoughts: (please note, they are my thoughts, and only my thoughts)

America hates quitters. That's what she is, plain and simple. Apparently, Sarah Palin only wanted to be governor while there was good times, and when the going got tough, she got going... the other way.

She seems to think that this frees her up to be a player in the national scene. Well, Sorry, Mrs Palin, the Republican Party already has filled the position of "unelected gadfly serving as the pitbull of the party." His name's Rush Limbaugh. You may have heard of him?

If she had at least hung on to the Governor's role through the end of her term, and set the stage for an Alaskan rebound, then she'd have something to use critics who accused her of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Instead, she's decided that it's much easier to quit the job she told Alaska she would do for them (at least if she was VP, you could spin it as a promotion).

Instead, she's trying to have her cake and eat it too. All of the spotlight, none of the responsibilities, none of the accountability. I guess she somehow thinks that she won't be branded as a quitter and as the "Ultimate Outsider" in 2012, successfully whip her base into such a frenzy that she somehow beats Obama.

I will be frank, I do not like Sarah Palin. I consider her an empty-headed, vacuous twit, who substitutes folksy mannerisms and empty platitudes for intelligence. She knows how to play to her base (up till now, I really think this is going to backfire on her).

edit: Thought of a few other things that I wanted to say. She's a hypocrite. She's all the "I will fight, because like all my core, I believe in fiscal responsibility". Yeah right. Then why did you wink wink nudge nudge about the bridge to nowhere. How about the shopping sprees you went on during the campaign?

Does that mean that she deserves some of the attacks she's getting? No. But here's a hint, Sarah, politics is a full-contact sport. I got two words for you, Denis Leary style here.. Vincent freaking Foster. Compare the stuff where the fringe accused the Clintons of either having the man killed or driving him to suicide, depending on which nutcase you believed, and the stuff you are going through is child's play.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Instead, she's decided that it's much easier to quit the job she told Alaska she would do for them (at least if she was VP, you could spin it as a promotion).

So are you going to level the same degree of criticism at every elected official who resigns their post to, for example, go to work as an Obama appointee?

That's why I can't see any real backlash on this, most especially not among supporters.

[SirFozzie]

Jon: At least in most cases, they're going from one job to another (for example, Jon Huntsman, the governor of Utah, accepting the position of Ambassador to China).

One of the things that Palin was hit on during the election was her lack of executive experience. She had a couple years as the Mayor, and was in the position of being the Governor of Alaska for a year and a half when she was tabbed to be McCain's VP pick.

The wisdom was that Palin should go back, get some more executive experience in, and then come back in 2012 or 16 as a power player, more knowledgeable and able to govern effectively. If she had just hung on to the Governor's role until 2010, she could campaign for Republican candidates (because she was a lame duck, etcetera) and build the foundation for the future

Instead, she does the exact opposite (no shock huh?) and decides that if she can't win without putting in effort, she won't play. She'll spend the next year writing a book and getting high honorariums for speeches (I honestly think it's about the $$$$), and then she'll be laughed out of the place if she tries to run for the presidency again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

J and then she'll be laughed out of the place if she tries to run for the presidency again.

I'd put her at no worse than 50-50 for the nomination if the primary were today and if she ever got the right handlers & was capable of listening to them as they steer her through the waters she might prove to be unbeatable in the primaries. (new scandal, new HUGE gaffe, etc notwithstanding).

She's got something none of the other known contenders other than Huckabee have shown, an ability to connect with voters on an emotional level. And I'd say she's better at that than he was.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not personally sold on her yet. But I'm not so far removed from the cult of personality that surrounded Bill Clinton as to be blind to what charisma can mean to a candidate. And she has that in abundance.

I'd still say the next Pres. election is Obama's to lose but I'd put those odds at no worse than 1 in 3 (i.e. of him losing enough appeal to cut his own vote count below a winning threshold) which oddly enough is the same odds I was going to say I'd give her at winning the whole thing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So are you going to level the same degree of criticism at every elected official who resigns their post to, for example, go to work as an Obama appointee?

That's why I can't see any real backlash on this, most especially not among supporters.

I would call many of those "promotions" over quitting. Palin is not resigning to take another job. I do find some of those people who resign to be wrong, but still different from what Palin did.

I believe if you want to run for office, you should be willing to fulfill the obligations within it. I understand her goals are different now and being Governor of Alaska is not her top priority. But you shouldn't take the job unless you are serious about making it your #1 priority.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd put her at no worse than 50-50 for the nomination if the primary were today and if she ever got the right handlers & was capable of listening to them as they steer her through the waters she might prove to be unbeatable in the primaries. (new scandal, new HUGE gaffe, etc notwithstanding).

She's got something none of the other known contenders other than Huckabee have shown, an ability to connect with voters on an emotional level. And I'd say she's better at that than he was.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not personally sold on her yet. But I'm not so far removed from the cult of personality that surrounded Bill Clinton as to be blind to what charisma can mean to a candidate. And she has that in abundance.

I'd still say the next Pres. election is Obama's to lose but I'd put those odds at no worse than 1 in 3 (i.e. of him losing enough appeal to cut his own vote count below a winning threshold) which oddly enough is the same odds I was going to say I'd give her at winning the whole thing.

I think that's extremely optimistic. She has a passionate following, but it's still a rather small contigent of the party. No hardcore conservative faired well in the primaries and with the demographic and social shifts in society, I can't see that number getting any better.

Beltway insiders and heads of the party know that she can't win a general election and will never throw their weight behind her. I think she can connect to small percent of the country, but that's it. I don't think her persona will ever be embraced by moderates or liberals. She would need both to win any general election.

I think she can be valuable for the party still. If used right, she could raise a lot of money and become a different voice. I think she's hurt herself badly since the election and whoever handles her is a complete moron. I think she'll be able to write some books, host a TV show, and make some big bucks speaking. But with her resignation, I think holding political office again is not going to happen.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really.

If it's not true and they know it isn't but run with it anyway ...

edit to add: Consider this advice for bloggers from the Wisconsin Bar Association (ain't the interwebz grand sometimes?)
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cf...ONTENTID=56211
... A public official or public figure10 claiming he or she has been defamed and seeking damages is subject to a higher standard than a private figure plaintiff. A public figure defamation plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that the speaker made the allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice - that is, either with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement.11 Proof of actual malice is required because public officials and public figures have greater opportunities to effectively counter false statements than do private individuals and, thus, they must meet a higher standard to prove a defamation claim

I can't imagine there'd be any problem proving either of those things with any number of bloggers.

It's not about whether she can win those, it's about the fact that it makes her look weak and thin-skinned. When you sit and feud with bloggers, you not only give them credibility, but you also show that their words have impacted you. Politicians rarely engage in defamation suits because it just makes them look soft.

I have no doubt that bloggers have been tough on her, just as they are on everyone. I remember reading blogs about Obama being a Muslim manchurian candidate. About him being a terrorist and not a U.S. citizen. His wife was labeled a traitor and there were bogus reports of a "whitey" tape that never surfaced. If he had sued those blogs, he would have looked weak. I mean how can she expect people to trust her on dealing with countries like China and Russia when a little blogger with no traffic is forcing her to resign her elected position.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No hardcore conservative faired well in the primaries

We've just seen the results of running a lukewarm candidate that nobody gave a damn about. That's a no-win proposition in more ways than one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not about whether she can win those, it's about the fact that it makes her look weak and thin-skinned.

I'd say it could be spun as punitive, and that's going to appeal to not only her core but to GOP voters in general.

As I've said, I think people consistently underestimate the deep seated outright hatred that exists (on both sides). Anything that pokes a finger in the oppositions eye is going to play just fine.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say it could be spun as punitive, and that's going to appeal to not only her core but to GOP voters in general.

As I've said, I think people consistently underestimate the deep seated outright hatred that exists (on both sides). Anything that pokes a finger in the oppositions eye is going to play just fine.

I think that anger is a small percent of each party. Most people may affiliate themselves with one party or another, but I don't think it's hatred toward the other side. They have more important things to worry about.

I still don't see how it's spun as a positive. Take a 2012 primary with Romney and Huckabee. They'd make her look weak as shit for worrying about little bloggers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't see how it's spun as a positive. Take a 2012 primary with Romney and Huckabee. They'd make her look weak as shit for worrying about little bloggers.

My gut is that Huckabee won't run again. Strictly my own hunch, which I reckon I'm entitled to like every other two bit would-be pundit. Meaning I've got nothing more concrete than just a feeling to base that on.

Meanwhile, it could just as easily be spun that Romney wasn't considered worth attacking and/or that he didn't have the balls to fight back. Not saying that's accurate or legit, just saying it's a potential deflection. Plus, I don't think it's a winning play for him to go down that road anyway, she's seemed awfully Teflon coated and it's going to be Hell for anyone in the primary that goes negative on her.

edit: Oops, nearly skipped something.

I think that anger is a small percent of each party

I'd say it's no less than half the GOP at this point, at least a third of the Dems (easier to be mellower when you're coming off a win & you've vanquished your most recent foe, some decrease would happen with the GOP coming off a win although I'd say to). You get a failed promise of "change", or utter dissatisfaction with the outcome of that promise & you're going to have a bigger percentage of ballots cast coming from those folks than we saw in '08.

[RainMaker]

We have different versions of teflon. She was shit on throughout the campaign and became a laughing stock across the country. Maybe amongst her core she's teflon, but you can say that about any politician.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say it's no less than half the GOP at this point, at least a third of the Dems (easier to be mellower when you're coming off a win & you've vanquished your most recent foe, some decrease would happen with the GOP coming off a win although I'd say to). You get a failed promise of "change", or utter dissatisfaction with the outcome of that promise & you're going to have a bigger percentage of ballots cast coming from those folks than we saw in '08.

I don't think there is a chance in hell that she gets a 3rd of Democrat voters. Look at their demographics and I can't see how she can do it with some of her social stances.

I think she could make a ton of money on her own. I also think she can raise a lot of money for Republicans. But she isn't going to be able to win a general election.

[SirFozzie]

Actually, that's a good point, RainMaker.. could this move by Palin set herself up to be the Kingmaker of the GOP? (IE, not the general election candidate, but somebody the other candidates have to seek their blessing) For all the things I dislike about her, she can rally her base like no other.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe amongst her core she's teflon, but you can say that about any politician.

Obviously you didn't meet Mr. McCain

In all seriousness though, I'm sitting here in a town that's extremely split on the things they value most (and therefore end up split on party lines). And I came from another one that was similar in that regard, albeit with different ratios. The tension is quite palpable and is present in virtually every situation so maybe that colors my perception of the intensity of the degrees of separation{shrug}.

You may recall how SkyDog & I have agreed in the past on the impact that race has on virtually everything in the South - where you shop for groceries, where you go to eat, much less where you go to church or where you buy a house -- That's about the only thing I can think of to compare the situation to here in Athens/Clarke County.

I doubt there's 10% of the residents here who couldn't tell you the voting trends of a neighborhood or area with a good degree of reliability & we (both sides) tend to stick to associating with people in those areas that match our own while avoiding those who don't. Within a relatively short time after meeting them I can tell you with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the political leanings of, say, nearly every parent in my child's class is as well as teachers, administrators, etc. Same goes with most of the people I do / have done business with over the past decade or more. And largely we increase or decrease the time we spend dealing with them accordingly as much as possible.

And that's pretty common, with the exceptions being those few folks that are wise enough to cooperate in avoiding anything remotely socio-political in the odd occasions where it's in our mutual interest to simply get along. Both sides know they're operating in a certain amount of denial but occasionally that's palatable & practical for a variety of reasons.

I mean hells bells, I know of a near brawl that broke out at a rather high brow wedding reception over political differences, if that's not a sign of serious tension (as well as the inability to drink & maintain good sense) I don't know what is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think there is a chance in hell that she gets a 3rd of Democrat voters.

Huh? No no, you misunderstood or I phrased it poorly or both.

I meant the percentage in the parties that essentially hated the other side, not the percentage of Dems that would vote for Palin or Repubs that would vote for Obama.

If I created confusion there, my bad for sure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Obviously you didn't meet Mr. McCain

In all seriousness though, I'm sitting here in a town that's extremely split on the things they value most (and therefore end up split on party lines). And I came from another one that was similar in that regard, albeit with different ratios. The tension is quite palpable and is present in virtually every situation so maybe that colors my perception of the intensity of the degrees of separation{shrug}.

You may recall how SkyDog & I have agreed in the past on the impact that race has on virtually everything in the South - where you shop for groceries, where you go to eat, much less where you go to church or where you buy a house -- That's about the only thing I can think of to compare the situation to here in Athens/Clarke County.

I doubt there's 10% of the residents here who couldn't tell you the voting trends of a neighborhood or area with a good degree of reliability & we (both sides) tend to stick to associating with people in those areas that match our own while avoiding those who don't. Within a relatively short time after meeting them I can tell you with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the political leanings of, say, nearly every parent in my child's class is as well as teachers, administrators, etc. Same goes with most of the people I do / have done business with over the past decade or more. And largely we increase or decrease the time we spend dealing with them accordingly as much as possible.

And that's pretty common, with the exceptions being those few folks that are wise enough to cooperate in avoiding anything remotely socio-political in the odd occasions where it's in our mutual interest to simply get along. Both sides know they're operating in a certain amount of denial but occasionally that's palatable & practical for a variety of reasons.

I mean hells bells, I know of a near brawl that broke out at a rather high brow wedding reception over political differences, if that's not a sign of serious tension (as well as the inability to drink & maintain good sense) I don't know what is.

that's pretty sad - in a general sense. that people are that intolerant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's pretty sad - in a general sense. that people are that intolerant.

Ever seen my signature?

I really think it's more about simply avoiding inevitable conflict. I'm talking about people who know they aren't generally going to enjoy each other's company because they have little in common and almost certainly not enjoy that company enough to be worth the stress & strain of having to mentally filter every word they say.

Since I'm already this far out off the subject I'll give you a great example. We know a couple that we have both a common interest with and a number of people in our lives in common that are every bit as far to the left as I can be to the right. The wife in that is damned near my mirror image socio-politically while having a strikingly similar personality in virtually every way and given a common target we have a ball together. She's me in female form basically. Her husband & my wife are very similar personalities & do very well together in the same way. It's like watching ourselves in reverse or something (similar birthdays for each matched pair btw). We're also on pretty even terms intellectually across the board and have gone so far as to talk about the way we all deal with the peculiar situation, again almost identical thought processes underway there too as it turns out.

The thing is, and both couples agree on this too, that it's extremely rare to find people you can make those differences work with & even rarer to find any that are worth the trouble to do so. After almost ten years of knowing them, I'll admit that it's easier to do now than it used to be, it becomes nearly automatic really and there are few people that I enjoy seeing socially more than I do them. At the same time, all four of us know (and me & my bizarro universe counterpart most especially) that if we're ever put at odds then it'll be no holds barred, Katy bar the door, do everything I can to ruin your life & make you rue your existence stuff. We all just go to great lengths to avoid ever finding ourselves in that position.

Now I ask you, how many times in your life do you really want to go through all those machinations? Especially when you have an ample supply of alternatives?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Obviously you didn't meet Mr. McCain

In all seriousness though, I'm sitting here in a town that's extremely split on the things they value most (and therefore end up split on party lines). And I came from another one that was similar in that regard, albeit with different ratios. The tension is quite palpable and is present in virtually every situation so maybe that colors my perception of the intensity of the degrees of separation{shrug}.

You may recall how SkyDog & I have agreed in the past on the impact that race has on virtually everything in the South - where you shop for groceries, where you go to eat, much less where you go to church or where you buy a house -- That's about the only thing I can think of to compare the situation to here in Athens/Clarke County.

I doubt there's 10% of the residents here who couldn't tell you the voting trends of a neighborhood or area with a good degree of reliability & we (both sides) tend to stick to associating with people in those areas that match our own while avoiding those who don't. Within a relatively short time after meeting them I can tell you with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the political leanings of, say, nearly every parent in my child's class is as well as teachers, administrators, etc. Same goes with most of the people I do / have done business with over the past decade or more. And largely we increase or decrease the time we spend dealing with them accordingly as much as possible.

And that's pretty common, with the exceptions being those few folks that are wise enough to cooperate in avoiding anything remotely socio-political in the odd occasions where it's in our mutual interest to simply get along. Both sides know they're operating in a certain amount of denial but occasionally that's palatable & practical for a variety of reasons.

I mean hells bells, I know of a near brawl that broke out at a rather high brow wedding reception over political differences, if that's not a sign of serious tension (as well as the inability to drink & maintain good sense) I don't know what is.

I tend to adhere to the philosophy of avoiding politics and religion at the dinner table. They are two hot button issues that no one can agree on and never ends well.

I know the South is different. I was just saying that I don't feel that people are that passionate about politics. Blogs, cable news, and other media outlets make it seem like everyone is a war and belongs to one side or the other. I believe that while most people have political ideals, it isn't high up on their daily priority list.

I've never chosen friends based on political beliefs and I could really give a shit what theirs are.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really.

If it's not true and they know it isn't but run with it anyway ...

edit to add: Consider this advice for bloggers from the Wisconsin Bar Association (ain't the interwebz grand sometimes?)
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cf...ONTENTID=56211
... A public official or public figure10 claiming he or she has been defamed and seeking damages is subject to a higher standard than a private figure plaintiff. A public figure defamation plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that the speaker made the allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice - that is, either with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth of the statement.11 Proof of actual malice is required because public officials and public figures have greater opportunities to effectively counter false statements than do private individuals and, thus, they must meet a higher standard to prove a defamation claim

I can't imagine there'd be any problem proving either of those things with any number of bloggers.

Well, as I brought up in the Michael Jackson thread, what is missing from this is that any public figure would have to prove specific damages which were caused by the defamation.

What damages could she possibly claim?

Also, there is a "newsworthiness" exception (i.e. the story/person is relevant to public information and there should be broader allowances with the message communicated) which exists in privacy torts and some states have extended it to defamation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

What damages could she possibly claim?

Tell you what, I'll not post the roll eyes smiley here & we can just both pretend I did. Saves wear & tear on the smileys that way.

[larrymcg421]

John, you are being hopelessly naive here if you think any defamation lawsuit in this case has a chance in hell. I mean, you're basically assuming that one of these bloggers wrote an e-mail to someone saying, "I doubt this story is true, but I'm going to post it anyways," AND that they sent it to a person that would let Palin's attorneys know or that the court is going to somehow issue a subpeona to review every e-mail or other form of correspondence that said blogger has stated. Come on, you're really reaching here.

The most this is going to do is help the bloggers. I'm sure "Liberal blogger Shannyn Moore" has got more hits in the last 24 hours than she ever has, much in the same way that Bill O'Reilly contributed to Al Franken's book sales.

[Chubby]

We all know that it could turn out that Palin murdered Steve McNair and his girlfriend and he'd still defend her til the end.

She's a tool for posting on facebook as gov. her lame defamation claim is a joke just like every other celebrity that throws it out and never follows up because, ya know, what was said was actually true.

Still waiting to hear what her "higher calling" is... of course we'll probably never know because the big bad media will be focused on the abuses that are about to come out (the ones we don't already know about)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

John, you are being hopelessly naive here if you think any defamation lawsuit in this case has a chance in hell.

If you're right then the court system is broken beyond all meaningful function & either needs wholesale repair or replacement (said as though I haven't long since reached that conclusion anyway).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you're right then the court system is broken beyond all meaningful function & either needs wholesale repair or replacement (said as though I haven't long since reached that conclusion anyway).

How so? Under your standard, the legal system would be overrun with tons of lawsuits against not just bloggers, but talk radio hosts. It would be ridiculous.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

John, you are being hopelessly naive here if you think any defamation lawsuit in this case has a chance in hell. I mean, you're basically assuming that one of these bloggers wrote an e-mail to someone saying, "I doubt this story is true, but I'm going to post it anyways," AND that they sent it to a person that would let Palin's attorneys know or that the court is going to somehow issue a subpeona to review every e-mail or other form of correspondence that said blogger has stated. Come on, you're really reaching here.

Exactly. The hurdle for a public figure to claim defamation is MASSIVE. It's not that easy. And it shouldn't be. It would have a chilling effect on free speech (Hell, imagine how many cases Bill Clinton could have won against Rush Limbaugh if the standard was that easy to meet).

Jumping on a story and hoping its true doesn't meet actual malice. You have to know that it's false, but push it through anyway. And that has to be proven.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Surtt

If you can't get your kids to listen, your message becomes moot.

No, it (may) just mean you're not a good parent. Every message out there - abstinence only, always use a condom, don't date until you're 25 - has its proponents. And every single one of those includes parents whose kids listen to them and parents whose kids don't listen to them. Doesn't mean jack about the message.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, given the nature of loudmouth bloggers, I have a hard time thinking they've all been tightlipped about any doubts. And I really don't believe half of them believe even half the shit they post.

Ok Jon, you have fibnally succeeded in making me choke to near death with laughter.

The very IDEA that YOU posted THIS almost dropped me off my chair.

[RainMaker]

Even if she wins a defamation suit, it makes her look real weak. I don't think there is any way to spin that in a positive direction. It makes her look thin-skinned and unable to handle criticism.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Surtt

If you can't get your kids to listen, your message becomes moot.

Depends on the message though. I personally believe it's near impossible to teach a kid that abstinence is the way to go. It's trying to get your kid to supress natural urges in their body. Not much different to from telling a kid not to laugh. At some point it doesn't matter how you paint your message if the concept is fundamentally wrong.

[albionmoonlight]

Having given this some thought, I think that the right answer is the easiest answer. It is about the money.

She can make more money doing the speaking tour/book writing/FoxNews show thing full-time than she can doing it part-time from Alaska.

IMHO, it is, as are so many things, about the money.

edit--And more power to her. If I had the opportunity to make the kind of money she's going to make--set your self, kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids up kind of money--just for telling people what I think and giving the occasional keynote speech, I would have a hard time saying no to that just so I could spend the next couple years being governor of an outpost state with a hostile legislature.

Further edit--I just did the math. Setting your greatgrandkids up for life actually takes some real serious bank. Maybe she won't make that much. But my general point remains. $$$ > no $$$.

[JediKooter]

I'm still trying figure out what the hell her appeal is other than her being somewhat MILFish. She makes Dan Quayle look like a politcal genius.

She's just one of those people that you can tell that she just doesn't have 'it'. She can handle it on the scale of Alaskan politics, but, national or otherwise, complete failure.

If it's about the money, that's fine, but, have the spine to finish out your term.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Having given this some thought, I think that the right answer is the easiest answer. It is about the money.

She can make more money doing the speaking tour/book writing/FoxNews show thing full-time than she can doing it part-time from Alaska.

IMHO, it is, as are so many things, about the money.

edit--And more power to her. If I had the opportunity to make the kind of money she's going to make--set your self, kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids up kind of money--just for telling people what I think and giving the occasional keynote speech, I would have a hard time saying no to that just so I could spend the next couple years being governor of an outpost state with a hostile legislature.

Further edit--I just did the math. Setting your greatgrandkids up for life actually takes some real serious bank. Maybe she won't make that much. But my general point remains. $$$ > no $$$.

That was my first impression when I heard about this. For someone who's so famous (and nationally mocked and hated), she's really not all that rich. Her celebrity is bigger than that job at this point, and she's going to cash in.

Good for her, though I'm not a fan of any public office holder leaving their terms early except for limited reasons (health/family issues/the majority of citizens want them to/ect).

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by molson

That was my first impression when I heard about this. For someone who's so famous (and nationally mocked and hated), she's really not all that rich. Her celebrity is bigger than that job at this point, and she's going to cash in.

Good for her, though I'm not a fan of any public office holder leaving their terms early except for limited reasons (health/family issues/the majority of citizens want them to/ect).

Yeah, thinking about it more over the weekend, I am starting to think that this decision is almost entirely about money. She's a hot commodity now, and if she plays her cards right, she could be wealthy on an Oprah-esque scale. In two years, who knows if she would have the same opportunity to cash in? I can believe that that post-convention shopping spree has given the whole family a taste for a more luxurious lifestyle.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Yeah, thinking about it more over the weekend, I am starting to think that this decision is almost entirely about money. She's a hot commodity now, and if she plays her cards right, she could be wealthy on an Oprah-esque scale. In two years, who knows if she would have the same opportunity to cash in? I can believe that that post-convention shopping spree has given the whole family a taste for a more luxurious lifestyle.

There's a lot of potential for cash, but she's no Oprah. The secret to Oprah's money has been her ability to produce and create. Talent will make money, but you need to control the product to get obscenely wealthy. If it's about money, the key for Palin is to milk it while she can. I doubt she has very many years of this kind of earning potential.