Official Website of Jason Pinter

I don't write about politics very often. Not because I don't follow it (I do), but because there's just so much out there from people vastly more informed than I am (and much from those who are not). But maybe that's why I should write about politics. I don't consider myself a hardcore member of either party (I could be swayed by a great candidate from the GOP or the Dems), and I'm definitely not a member of the 'loony left' or 'nutjob right'. Yet I do read commentary from both sides of the aisle (I have HuffPo and The Fox Nation bookmarked), and think that Keith Olbermann can spout as much bluster as Rush Limbaugh. So with that in mind, here are my thoughts about Sarah Palin:

As I've mentioned before, I was there when Sarah Palin spoke at the opening ceremonies at Bouchercon in Anchorage in 2007. She was sharp and funny --although more than one person remarked how little must be going on in Alaska for the Governor to take time to welcome a bunch of mystery writers. Still, she made such a good impression on me that when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I thought, "Ooh, that's a game changer." Well, it was and it wasn't.

Palin proved to be an incredibly difficult politician to get a handle on. On one hand, she could deliver a knock-em-dead speech that electrified the G.O.P. faithful (like at the Republican

National Convention). On the other, when forced to speak off the cuff she came across as defensive, combative and uninformed. She redeemed herself slightly during the VP debate, though that was partly because the bar had been set so low due to her previous interviews. When interviewed by friendly hosts (Sean Hannity et al) whose questions seemed to fall into the "Why is Barack Obama so terrible?" and "Why does the mainstream media hate you?" category, Palin thrived. When comfortable, Palin was witty, and could deliver a line with enough bite to make an offhand remark sink in. Yet for those of us who fell more in the middle, we grew increasingly frustrated with Palin's inability to delve beyond talking points and platitudes, and at some point she officially became McCain's hatchet man, throwing about charges of socialism and accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Many on the right, including Palin herself, charged the media with 'elitism.' I always laugh at that, considering Barack Obama is the son of a Kenyan goat herder who made the vast majority of his money off of books he wrote himself, while George W. Bush came from a family of wealthy politicians and John McCain married a young millionaire heiress. No knocks on either, but charges of 'elitism' tend to be driven more by ideology than fact. But I digress.

There were many on the far left who hated Palin simply for her accent and way of life, calling her 'Caribou Barbie'. But for most of us, we took what she had to say at face value. I grew tired of the 'pro-America areas of this great nation' speeches, and how she seemed to view New York and California as though they were Sodom and Gomorrah. If you govern a country, you govern each and every one of its citizens--even in states that tend to vote blue. Yet I always felt like Palin openly believed every New Yorker/Californian had the exact same temperament as David Letterman, Maureen Dowd, or even Satan himself.

Eventually Palin played the sexism card, which she had a right to do, though it came off as somewhat hypocritical considering she had previously knocked Hillary Clinton's similar views. To some extent, the sexism/elitism charges were warranted. There were attacks on Palin and her family that neither Obama or McCain (or even the Bushes) ever saw. She was right in confronting David Letterman, whose joke about her 14-year old daughter was tasteless and defenseless. But then she crossed the line as well. Palin put out a statement condemning Letterman's remarks, the final paragraph of which stated, "Willow, no doubt, would want to stay away from David Letterman." The insinuation being that Letterman was either a child molester or someone who could not be trusted around a 14-year old girl.

Palin had the high road. And with this remark she took the low, low road. On the Today Show, Palin said of the comment, "Take it however you want." As though the comment might have numerous meanings. It did not. As a public figure you have every right to protect your family, but her comment was simply put, messed up. And very, very unbecoming of someone who might seek the highest office in the land.

After the election, Palin's star seemed to rise as McCain's dimmed. Her name was included in every discussion about the future of the G.O.P., and she was immediately considered a frontrunner for the 2012 presidential nomination.

And then she resigned.

Now as many have pointed out, there are four possible reasons for Palin's departure:

1) Family.

Palin and her family have been dragged through the mud, and face half a million dollars in legal bills. She's tired of the public scrutiny, tired of her children being in the spotlight, and she wants to lead a (relatively) normal life. Noble, if that's the case, but I don't really buy it. Everything Palin has said since her resignation has led us to believe she plans to stay in the public eye, even mentioning (on her Facebook page, of all things) that she has a 'higher calling' and still intends to work for change.

2) She wants to run for President.

At this point, I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer that Palin is just not a viable candidate. She already had a long way to go to convince anyone outside the far right that she was capable, and with her resignation Palin's Presidential ship has struck an iceberg. She barely made it 2.5 years into a 4-year term, and quit on the very people of Alaska who elected her. Use whatever basketball analogies you want, the bottom line is she quit. I still do not understand how an elected official can simply resign from office without informing her constituents of the reasoning behind it. The bottom line is this: if Palin runs for President, anyone who runs against her, whether it be Republican challengers or the Democratic candidate, can say, "You can't handle being the Governor of Alaska, how the hell can you handle being the President of the country?" And this is one question Palin simply cannot spin.

3) Money.

This ties into #1. Palin has mounting legal bills. But she is also the most recognizable name and brand in the Republican party. It is very possible that Palin knows she is a long shot to win a nomination and/or the presidency, so why not cash it when the chips are high? Between books, speaking engagements and a possible television show, Palin could easily reap in many multiples of the $125,000 she currently earns (or earned) as Governor. By doing this, she could continue to be a prominent right-wing voice without facing the scrutiny of being a national candidate.

4) Scandal.

It's possible, but I'm not sure I buy it. I just can't believe that after all the scrutiny she faced as a Vice Presidential candidate, somehow investigators (both Federal and in the media) failed to unearth some massive conspiracy up that would derail her career. I can't say it's impossible, but why would something come out now that did not come out during the campaign, when she was under a far more powerful microscope?

If I had to guess, Palin's resignation is a combination of 1 and 3. Mounting debts combined with massive earning power convinced Palin that the best thing for her would be to work from outside the Governor's office. We'll see if that holds water.

Sarah Palin remains one of the most interesting politicians of our age. She is without a doubt the most ring-wing politician on the national stage in some time, yet she does not look or act like a typical politician. But as John Green pointed out in this funny video, Chewbacca is not a typical politician either. This is not to compare Sarah Palin to a hairy wookie, but to say that she is simply not cut from the same cloth at Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. If you're on the far right, this is a blessing. If you're on the far left, it's a curse. If you're like me and fall more in the middle, you simply interpret the facts as they come. And from my perspective, I cannot see Sarah Palin competing again on the national stage. I would not vote for someone who resigned from their elected position without having the decency to inform their constituents as to the reasons for their decision. Say what you want about 'politics as usual', but I would want my candidate to stand firm in harsh wind.

A few days ago, I used my editor/agent/superhero powers to decode the press release about former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's book deal with Phoenix Books. Now, the president of Phoenix Books, Michael Viner, has published an article on the Huffington Post about the reaction to his company signing up Mr. Blagojevich. And so, using the same superpowers, I will now decode Mr. Viner's HuffPo article (actual article in italics. Decoded article in bold):

As a former editor, current author and part-time super hero, I have participated on both sides of the dealmaking process. So when I read that former Chicago Governor Rod Blagojevich just got a "six figure book deal," I decided to put on my super-secret publishing decoder glasses and see what the former Governor's press release really says (Actual release in italics. Decoded secret press release in bold). Here we go:

The literary agent of record is Jarred Weisfeld of Objective Entertainment.

For Breaking News developments on former Gov. Blagojevich, please follow The Publicity Agency on Twitter at http://twitter.com/PublicityAgency.

I get the whole Joe the Plumber thing. I understand why McCain made him the most famous plumber since Mario. He gave a face to regular Americans who might be adversly affected by Barack Obama's tax plan. Joe had every right to ask the questions he did, and I understand why McCain made a big deal out of him. Joe was a regular American. "Joe Six-Pack" in the flesh. McCain held him up as a sort of ideal, a symbol of working class Americans everywhere who just wanted to get by and live the dream. I was outraged when the press started criticizing Joe--it wasn't his fault he was given 15 minutes--and felt the man should have been left alone. Obviously Joe felt differently. 

Fine. No problem. People presumably less intelligent with less to offer have gotten famous for far less (Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, everyone who's ever been on "The Hills").

But now it's gone too far.

Joe the Plumber is actively stumping for John McCain. Yesterday, McCain said that if elected, "I'm going to Washington and I'm going to bring Joe the plumber with me." I have no idea if McCain was being facetious, but something tells me he was not.

So what's my problem with this? 

By going on the trail with McCain, Joe Wurzelbacher is now officially a McCain surrogate. He is no longer "Joe Six-Pack." He is a spokesman for John McCain, not a regular citizen. Makes no mistake about it: Joe Wurzelbach is a member of John McCain's campaign. And when Joe Wurzelbacher makes statements like these, agreeing that an Obama presidency will be "Death to Israel," he needs to be disavowed like Bill Ayers and Reverand Wright. These words are damaging. Not only because they're untrue, but because they're divisive and will undoubtedly cause many impressionable Americans to believe Obama is some sort of anti-Semite, or at the very least not be as sensitive to Israel's issues as he should be.

Make no mistake. Joe Wurzelbacher is officially a McCain surrogate. He speaks on behalf of the campaign. If Joe wants to go off and try his hand at a singing career, or even a run for Congress, I wish him the best. But I'm tired of fear mongering. I'm tired of divisive politics. It's one thing for an American to be uninformed and make poor judgments. That might not be admirable, but it's allowed. It's a totally different thing when those uninformed opinions are not only validated, but endorsed by a man who very well could be the President of the United States. 

So do us a favor. Don't present this man as some sort of policy expert. He is not. If you officially endorse his views (emphasis on officially), you should be held accountable when those views are inappropriate. 

Thankfully some members of the press are calling Joe out on his remarks. It shouldn't be too much to ask that the man who might run this country, who claims to want to bring us all together, do the same.

In today's New York Times, Janet Maslin reviews Bill O'Reilly's new book, A BOLD FRESH PIECE OF HUMANITY. Now, when I saw the link for this review, I was intrigued. It's hardly a secret that O'Reilly has little respect for the Times, and the paper itself doesn't think much of O'Reilly. O'Reilly has declared the Times as "in the tank" for Obama, and insulted Bill Keller while taking tremendous glee at the paper's fading stock price (when O'Reilly says he's looking out for 'You', he means unless 'You' work for the 'Liberal Media'. To be fair, there are plenty of portly hypocrites on the left who love employees but hate employers, forgetting that even massive conglomerates employ regular people with bills to pay and families to feed). 

In a 2006 Times review of O'Reilly's CULTURE WARRIOR, Jacob Heilbrun delcares the host to be an "apostle of mediocrity and banality." So frankly, this could have been a fascinating review, since despite what the Times thinks about O'Reilly, he's inarguably one of the most popular and influential hosts on air. That he and the Times seem to have diametrically opposite worldviews makes the new book--a memoir--potentially interesting material for one enemy to truly understand the other.

It's safe to say that the audience that reads the Times and the audience that watches O'Reilly are for the most part on opposite ends of the political spectrum. But instead of offering real analysis into the book, the man, or why someone the left decries as a "bully" and a "dim bulb" has an audience triple that of Keith Olbermann, it offers up bloody red meat for liberals, a review that will make the left smile, cause O'Reilly to no doubt bash the Times on his program (he's called them out for slotting Times columnist Thomas Friedman's new book at #1 on the bestseller list despite O'Reilly's claims that he's outselling Friedman by 35%), and leave nobody else caring. I don't think it's too much to ask that a review offer insight that could potentially change minds. This review will not sell one more copy, nor will it prevent one person from buying it. It does not attempt to offer liberals any insight into why O'Reilly is a cultural phenomenon, nor does it try to convince conservatives that it's all smoke and mirrors. Rather it takes a piece from each side, telling hardcore liberals what they already believe: that the phenomenon is all smoke and mirrors (very, very angry smoke).

Now, I listen to O'Reilly's program on a fairly frequent basis. Despite being a registered democrat and someone who considers himself left of center, I need my palate cleansed from time to time since regular media coverage (let's be honest) tends to skew heavily left. A little righteous indignation (even though sometimes misdirected) is good to get the blood pumping.

Two things I believe about Bill O'Reilly: he is not nearly as dumb as the left thinks he is, but he is every bit as egotistical (perhaps more so). He has an uncanny ability to frame nearly every political and cultural debate within the context of himself (he believes that John McCain would win the presidency if McCain simply went nuclear on financial 'villains' like O'Reilly did to Barney Frank). Sometimes this righteous indignation hits home. He rages against Frank, Christopher Dodd and Chris Cox who spent more time deflecting blame than taking accountability while our economy sunk lower and lower. Sometimes it seems like his show is merely a forum to grind axes. If you write a negative print article about O'Reilly, it's a safe bet that an "O'Reilly Factor" camera crew will show up in your driveway within the week. 

Back to my point. Statements like "Mr. O’Reilly, who either works with a collaborator or was born with a ghostwriter’s gift for filling space with platitudes" are more mean-spirited than critical. And the review devotes more space to criticizing pop culture mistakes in O'Reilly's book than it does covering crime fiction in a month.

This could have been a fascinating article, helping to inform both sides of a political debate by illuminating arguably the most polarizing cable host alive. But it's basically the equivalent of one of Olbermann's self0important "Special Comments": it will have hardcore liberals nodding their heads, hardcore conservatives shaking theirs, and the millions of people closer to the middle wondering what the point of it all is.

--First off, Gwen Ifill should not have moderated the debate. Even though in the end she came off as a professional, just like sports referees the moderator should never be a focal point of a contest. 

--Palin likely came off far better than everyone expected. She was confident and showed much more mastery of the facts than in her previous interviews. SNL doesn't have a whole lot of material to go on should they parody the debate.

--I hadn't seen much of Joe Biden, and came away thoroughly impressed. In fact I think he came off better in this debate than Obama did in the presidential debate (which I believe McCain won). 

--While Palin exceeded expectations, those expecations were fairly low. And all things being equal, I felt Biden won the debate handily. This is not to say Palin lost the debate--there were no major gaffes as far as I could tell--but I felt Biden was simply superb. He came off as knowledgable, experienced without being out of touch, and human (anyone who didn't get a brief lump in their throat when he talked about his tragic accident simply doesn't have a soul). His reply to Palin's "being a mom" statement where he said "the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone...I understand" was powerful stuff and showed that you don't need to be a hockey mom to know what it's like to raise a family in tough times.

--Things I thought Biden did well: He knew his stuff, and hammered the specifics about McCain's plan, including Health Care which was fairly damning. He wasn't condescending to Palin, and in fact seemed genuinely gracious before and after. He attacked McCain's policies, was strong in his disapproval for the last eight years (his comments about Cheney were eye-opening) and was rarely rebuffed by Palin. He did not make any stupid comments, nor did he go after Palin specifically, a smart move since people do vote for the top of the ticket first.

--Things I felt Biden did poorly: At times it felt like he was more excited about a Biden vice-presidency than an Obama presidency. Got a little too wordy at times, and mumbled a bit which made a few comments hard to distinguish. Sometimes had no response but to smile or look at his dais when Palin critiqued him or Obama, and was hit hard when Palin pointed out where he and Obama differed.

--Things I felt Palin did well: She showed off her folksy charm, but with much more command of the material. She got in a few good digs at the Obama/Biden ticket, and really drew blood when talking about Biden's earlier criticisms of Obama and his refusal to accept a VP nod (which Biden did not respond to). Though her desire for "straight talk" was ironic considering her recent interviews, her critique about Biden being against the war before he was for it was a home run.

--Things I felt Palin did poorly: The folksy stuff got way too cutesy at times, and I couldn't believe she actually winked at the t.v. Winking is not folksy, it's flirtatious. And had a male candidate done that he would have been rightly eviscerated. She seemed to know her stuff, but as opposed to Biden she came off as more well-coached than innately knowledgable. And her "I may not answer the questions that you or the moderator want to hear" is an unnacceptable response. The moderator is a stand-in for the American people, asking the questions we want answered. Evading those questions does not make her come across as a Maverick from outside the Beltway, but made it seem like she was simply avoiding the issues she was less comfortable discussing.

With John McCain trailing in national polls, and seemingly losing ground by the day as the totality of the economic crisis becomes apparent, his advisors are apparently cooking up an event (see here and here) that would make any television network executive proud. According to several news reports, the McCain campaign is hoping for an October "shotgun wedding" between Bristol Palin, 17, and her beau, Levi Johnston, 17. Now, I'm all in favor of wedded bliss. If these two genuinely love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together--on their terms and their timetable--God bless them. I mean that.

But these articles seem to insinuate that the potential wedding will be one thing, and one thing only: a ploy by the McCain-Palin ticket to tug on the heartstrings of average Americans (aka undecided voters), blinding their fears about the economy and the war on terror with lovely staged photographs of two young political pawns. Yes, pawns. Because if this wedding does take place for any reason other than these two wanting to share their lives in wedded bliss when they are ready to do so, then I sincerely hope every undecided voter sees for themselves just what a sham the McCain campaign has become. With Sarah "I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring 'em to ya" Palin and a campaign suspension that was shorter-lived than a Jerry O'Connell sitcom, it is becoming increasingly obvious that with their polls numbers tanking the GOP ticket is looking to do anything--literally, anything--to increase goodwill among voters. Even if it's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

If the McCain campaign pushes this wedding for the reasons that are currently being cited, they would be turning what should be a private and joyful ceremony into a shameless and shameful political ploy. Notice how the reports say "the expectation is growing" that the two will get hitched. They're not hoping for a wedding for the happiness of the children. They're hoping the wedding will give the campaign "a fresh round of publicity" for the sake of their political futures.

I give Meghan McCain credit. She is unashamedly campaigning for her father, trying to encourage the youth vote by relating to those voters in a way neither her father (nor Barack Obama) can. She is honest about her motives, and is not being used by the system. She is aware of her place and wants to use whatever status and celebrity she has to help her father. Her efforts are completely transparent, and she does what she wants on her terms.

If Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston want to marry in October because their hearts are set on it, I wish them nothing but happiness and a healthy child. But when a McCain insider asks, "What's the downside?" to a wedding, if that wedding is anything but 100% sincere I hope the downside is every American realizing that the Republican ticket is not entering the home stretch of the campaign, but rather artificially padding their anemic lineup for sweeps week.