Close readings: Sarah Palin’s discandidacy announcement

By Dan Brooks in Close Reading, Uncategorized 5 Comments

"Did you just say pork burrito? It sounded like you said pork burrito."

I follow three people on Twitter: Ben Fowlkes, Iowa legislator/general nutjob Kim Lehman, and Sarah Palin. Yesterday, SarahPalinUSA directed me to Facebook for a “statement on 2012 decision.” The statement is that she isn’t running. She cites the same reasons that have been drifting through her various word-clouds for the last month: that she wants to help other conservatives get elected, that she doesn’t need a title to “restore” America, that no one who owns a TV or has heard of America would even briefly consider putting her in charge of it. That last one is implied, I guess, but the upshot is that even Sarah Palin knows Sarah Palin can’t be President. Most of her announcement is what you’d expect, except for the first paragraph. That’s actually a work of considerable nuance, or at least insinuation, and it’s the subject of today’s Close Reading. Primary source after the jump.

Continue reading

Terrifying: Bristol Palin will “probably run for office”

By Dan Brooks in Class Warfare 9 Comments

Tic. Tic. Tic...

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Sarah Palin about some things. For example, we both think that the media contributes to a climate of incivility in our political discourse. We both enjoy salmon. We both make our living by producing as many words as possible on short notice. And, most importantly, we both believe in American exceptionalism. The United States is the first country built around an idea rather than an ethnic group. As a corollary to that idea, we are one of the few nations without a hereditary aristocracy. That’s why I was extremely chagrined to see this article, in which Bristol Palin announces her intention to run for public office “somewhere down the road.” Props to the nameless Combat! reader* who sent me the link via Sarah Aswell.

Continue reading

Sarah Palin releases spray of nonsense on Hannity

By Dan Brooks in Public Discourse 5 Comments

"In fact, Sean, everyone has moved to the right lately."

Pilloried in the press, maligned by the media and, I dunno, blamed by the blogosphere, Sarah Palin refuted allegations that rhetoric like hers contributed to the Tucson shootings by going on Sean Hannity Monday night and proving, once and for all, that words don’t mean anything. Like a pretty pretty octopus, she held still for a second, changed colors, and vanished behind a high-pressure jet from her word hole. Quote:

Those on the left hate my message and will do all that they can to stop me because they don’t like the message.

That little tautology is the most meaningful thing she said during the whole interview. For Sarah Palin, “because” means “and also.” All the other words mean the same thing as one another.

Continue reading

Close Readings: Beck on Palin on Loughner

By Dan Brooks in Close Reading 2 Comments

The file cabinet interviews the cat.

Yesterday, on his radio show, Glenn Beck announced that he had conducted an email exchange with Sarah Palin regarding the public response to Jared Lee Loughner. Props to Ben al-Fowlkes for the link. “Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer,” Beck said he wrote. “I know you are feeling the same heat, if not much more on this. I want you to know you have my full support.” One hopes, for Palin’s sake, that he is already lying at this point, and that she does not have to field creepy emails from Glenn Beck every Monday morning. Regardless, Beck claims that two things happened next. First, he recommended that Palin hire some bodyguards or something, “because an attempt on you could bring the Republic down.”* As Emily Post reminds us, you should always conclude any letter of support by speculating on what would happen if the person you’re writing to were assassinated. Second, the response he claims to have gotten from Palin is so baffling, so obstinate in its thwarting of sense, that it is the subject of today’s Close Reading.

Continue reading