Going Rogue

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Review

By Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata

When I got about halfway through the book I set it down, stepped outside of my Washington, DC townhouse and went for a run around the U.S. Capitol. Listening to the Outlaws, Marshall Tucker Band, and Lil Bow Wow (my daughter slipped that one in there) on my iPod, the recurrent thought in my mind was that this woman is far more qualified to be president of the United States than the current occupant of the White House.
When I completed the journey that is Going Rogue, I wrote down five things:

–She is a positive role model for all Americans
–She is an executive, takes on hard problems and makes tough decisions
–She has tremendous energy, balance and intellect
–America shafted itself in this last election
–Alaska is lucky to have her

Oh, and a sixth, Sarah Palin could be the next president of the United States.

Her book washes away all doubts that any reader might have had about her readiness to be president. She comes across as exceptionally bright, dedicated, and passionate about public service. Her moral compass is strong, pointing true North in this case. And she has a wicked sense of humor.

The most salient take-away from Going Rogue for me was what I admired most in her campaign, which was that she had been in charge as either a mayor or a governor whereas none of the other candidates on either ticket had. Having been a commander several times in the military I know that there is a huge difference between being a hardworking and important staff officer and an ‘alone at the top’ commander. No matter how fancy the title, executive officer or Senator, at the end of the day, you are recommending to someone who actually makes the decision.

As a Governor, mayor or commander, you have the unparalleled responsibility to actually make decisions that have ramifications. There is little training that can prepare you for all those heads turning in your direction when it is decision time. You can’t blithely abstain on a vote or hide behind the guy in front of you, because you own the decision. Case in point is Obama’s inexcusable delay in making a decision on Afghanistan. His indecision, cloaked as ‘sleeves-rolled-up-pensiveness’, is an indicator that he was, at a minimum, unprepared to be commander in chief. What we see in his speech at West Point is a minimally slimmed down version of what General Stan McChrystal submitted to the president on August 30th. So now big Stan has nine months to do what he said it takes 12 months to accomplish.

Palin, on the other hand, demonstrates decisiveness and vulnerability. Is she prepared for the enormous breadth of responsibility of president? I think she’s ready for the hard part, which is making tough decisions. She’s no “Ruminator-in Chief”, that’s for sure, and if the American people think a second year back bench senator was ready to be president, I’m not sure we’ve got the right rubric out there.

Palin is real. She takes counsel of her fears and continuously comes back to her foundation of family, God, state and nation for reassurance and guidance. She has strong moral guideposts that she uses to navigate the shark infested political waters. Reading about the decisions Sarah Palin faced at multiple levels of government reminded me of something my command sergeant major in the 82nd Airborne Division used to say when we faced a tough decision together: “Sir, when you’re right, don’t worry about it.”

Palin is right on many issues such as energy policy, defense, business, and size of government. She gets it and my hope is that she firms up her base and then reaches out to moderates across this country. She has a gritty determination borne in the salmon hauls and caribou hunts that make her pioneer tough.

I am left wondering why the McCain campaign bottled her up and didn’t let the maverick, well, be a maverick. McCain made an unconventional pick and instead of hiring a Wall Street stockbroker to manage her I’m perplexed, and disappointed, that he didn’t let this one-woman campaign juggernaut do her thing. If she was accustomed to traveling all over Alaska campaigning essentially by herself or with her family by her side, surely she could have done without all of the layers of control. I believe that Sarah Palin is precisely what the American people are seeking: an honest, intelligent, passionate, practical conservative who is nonpartisan and a tough decision maker.

Oddly, as I read Going Rogue and learned the real story behind the mainstream media assault upon this patriot, I was briefly reminded of the first time I met Hillary Clinton. She was in her first year as New York’s junior senator and my impression of her was largely shaped by what I read in the newspapers or saw on television, meaning mostly negative. When she came into the Pentagon for a 45 minute briefing from my boss, I was one of four people in the room: the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Senator Clinton, her assistant Uma Abedin, and me.

Over the next 90 minutes, she not only ignored her schedule, but she demonstrated a keen intellect, undeniable sincerity, and genuine interest in the many complex topics discussed. I came away from that meeting with an entirely different viewpoint on Senator Clinton than had been painted for me in the media. I tucked away the lesson to always remember that there is a phalanx of reporters, journalists and hate mongers who are trying to tell us all what to think.

And so it was with Sarah Palin, someone I actually supported. I think Palin recognizes that the extreme members of both parties and media put each of them through the Mixmaster, in some part because they are women, and she extends an olive branch to Clinton for a chat over a cup of coffee.

No matter what your political leanings, you better believe that Sarah Palin will step forward when the time is right. She has spine and she is called to public service. She’s been bloodied in the faux battles of presidential politics and yet she’s still standing, making tough decisions. She seems to have an iron core spirit and a will to make our country better.

And like that pipeline of ink, she seems to have an indomitable will that when attacked, unfortunately for her opponents, she doesn’t break. Her resolve seems to strengthen.

As her father said, “Sarah’s not retreating; she’s reloading.”

We should hope so, because she’s precisely the kind of leader America needs

going_rogue_m.jpg
 
A Conservative Read On Palin's 'Going Rogue'

by Rod Dreher

November 17, 2009

Sarah Palin is back to tell us that she loves Alaska. And America. And Todd, the First Dude. She loves God, Ronald Reagan, cutting taxes and serving those she calls "ordinary hardworking people." Who's on Sarah's enemies list? The media. Good ol' boys who condescend to her. Elites like the Alaskan gadfly she describes as a "Birkenstock-and-granola Berkeley grad." Oh, and she really hates cynical McCain campaign staffers who, in her view, sabotaged her vice-presidential campaign.

That's pretty much everything you need to know about Going Rogue, the former Alaska governor's breezy new memoir. There's more about the intricacies of Alaskan politics than most readers could possibly care about. There are also familiar stories of life on the campaign trail. But Going Rogue is a book designed to re-introduce Palin as a national political force, and — though she's coy about this — to lay the groundwork for a 2012 presidential run.

The rap on Palin is that she's too shallow and inexperienced for the presidency — a conclusion that early Palin supporters like me came to during the 2008 campaign. Alas, for conservatives in search of a champion, there's nothing in Going Rogue to challenge that conclusion. It's like this: Palin spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views.

Palin's economic program amounts to nothing more than tax-cutting, deregulating, and the endless repetition of shopworn GOP talking points. This is the Republican Party's great populist hope?

Palin positions herself as a populist, but her populism is entirely cultural. She never misses an opportunity to tell us how weepy she gets when she thinks about our country and its military. She fires the governor's mansion chef, who is bored because her kids won't eat his fancypants food. She swoons over a meal of homemade blueberry pie from "hardworking, unpretentious, patriotic" Alaskans — unlike, one presumes, those uppity Berkeley snobs who prefer tarte Tatin at Chez Panisse.

A little of that goes a long way, and I wouldn't begrudge Palin a bit of it if her populism had any economic substance. Early in Going Rogue she talks in detail about how Exxon exploited the people of Alaska in the Exxon Valdez disaster. And her experience tangling with oil companies taught Palin about how big business colludes with government to create a crony capitalism that harms the common good.

And yet, she's incapable of understanding how the uncritically pro-business economic agenda she touts makes this possible.

"In national politics, some feel that big Business is always opposed to the Little Guy," she writes. "Some people seem to think a profit motive is inherently greedy and evil, and that what's good for business is bad for people. (That's what Karl Marx thought too.)"

Karl Marx! Well, say no more! Along those lines, Palin's economic program amounts to nothing more than tax-cutting, deregulating and the endless repetition of shopworn GOP talking points.

This is the Republican Party's great populist hope?

Sarah Palin is selling a personality, not a platform. That's not dumb. She's doing the best she can with what she has to work with. She quotes her father's line upon her resignation this summer as Alaska's governor: "Sarah's not retreating, she's reloading." On evidence of this book, Sarah Palin is charging toward 2012 shooting blanks.

Note - I added the italics and bolded the last paragraph...
 
In fairness, this is what "conservative" Rod Dhrerer had to say about constitutional expert, attorney, and now talk radio pundit Mark Levin:

Having spent about 15 unpleasant minutes listening to this creep, I cannot imagine why anybody pays attention to him.

This self-avowed conservative doesn't seem to be particularly conservative or libertarian in any way. In fact, he's a big-government progressive Republican at best. I guess he's a "conservative" because he favors tax cuts or believes in God?

It's a long time until 2012.
Few people seem to remember this, in the years before the '80 election, Reagan did an either weekly radio broadcast, talking about current events and politics. Just a brief essays that'd he'd written. They're excellent.

Similar to Rush Limbaugh's morning updates (another guy that the "conservative" foxpaws quoted doesn't like) but longer and better written.

I'd like to see Palin take on some kind of role like that, where she has to thoughtful articulate her philosophies and views in a timely way like that.
 
I'd like to see Palin take on some kind of role like that, where she has to thoughtful articulate her philosophies and views in a timely way like that.

If she did this and was successful more people would take her seriously.
At least she didn't pardon a turkey this year :D
 
In 2002, Dreher wrote an essay in National Review that explored a subcategory of American conservatism he defined as "granola conservatism", whose adherents he described as "crunchy cons". He defined these individuals as traditionalist conservatives who believed in environmental conservation, frugal living, and the preservation of traditional family values. They also express skepticism about aspects of free market capitalism and they are usually religious (typically traditionalist Roman Catholics or conservative Protestants). Four years later, Dreher published a book that expanded upon the themes of this manifesto. This book was Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Homeschooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or At Least the Republican Party).[4]

Dreher is working on another book with a new theme. He has said on his blog that it will center on "the Benedict Option", the idea that those who want to live with traditional morality should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.
So, he's a Walden Pond type wacko.


Fox misrepresents YET AGAIN.

Should we start a sticky and hold all of her dishonest posts?

I never even heard of this guy Dreher until Fox dredged him up.

Hey foxpaws, what does conservative Rush Limbaugh say about Palin? After all, he's been voted the most influential conservative in the country.

FAIL.
 
So, he's a Walden Pond type wacko.


Fox misrepresents YET AGAIN.

Should we start a sticky and hold all of her dishonest posts?

I never even heard of this guy Dreher until Fox dredged him up.

Hey foxpaws, what does conservative Rush Limbaugh say about Palin? After all, he's been voted the most influential conservative in the country.

FAIL.

I just copied the article - the headline was what was printed, not my commentary.

Ah, Rush follows Palin like a panting dog... And wouldn't it be wonderful if they hooked up forces... Nothing could please me more.

Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties.

Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.
 
Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties.

So you disagree with her decision to resign a job so knew she would be hounded at until the end, or was it better strategy to save the taxpayers of Alaska the money and jump-start her Presidential run?

You are very afraid. I can feel it emanating from your body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just copied the article - the headline was what was printed, not my commentary.

Nice backpedal. So you don't believe or support what's in the article?

Ah, Rush follows Palin like a panting dog... And wouldn't it be wonderful if they hooked up forces... Nothing could please me more.
How would you even know this, since you don't listen?

But thanks for confirming my point. You tacitly admit you deliberately sought out a squishy 'conservative' who's critical of Palin, although you still won't make your point based on that.

Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties.
But you campaigned for a man who didn't stick out his? :rolleyes:
Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.
Ramble ramble...

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.
This from an admitted non-listener. Not that you'd be able to articulate the difference. :rolleyes:
 
I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.
It's an excellent book that I pulled off the shelf after writing that last post.
It too expanded my opinion and respect for the man.

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.
I haven't read the Palin book, so I can't address that.
But I don't think there's any difference in the conservatism of Reagan or Limbaugh EXCEPT the times they lived.
 
Hey foxpaws, have you read the Palin book? You're always the first one to attack someone's credibility based on whether or not they've read this or that book.

Do tell.

Or will this be one of the questions you're 'too smart' to answer?
 
So you disagree with her decision to resign a job so knew so would be hounded at until the end, or was it better strategy to save the taxpayers of Alaska the money and jump-start her Presidential run?

You are very afraid. I can feel it emanating from your body.

MM - are you really that close to me - emanating from my body? :)
 
Hey foxpaws, have you read the Palin book? You're always the first one to attack someone's credibility based on whether or not they've read this or that book.

Do tell.

Or will this be one of the questions you're 'too smart' to answer?

Got through about 30 pages of it - set it aside - I'll try to get back to it, but honestly-I will probably wait for a friend of mine to tell me the sections to read, I doubt if I will be reading the entire book. It isn't very compelling. And it isn't in her 'own' words. I find that more telling about a person. Filtered through a ghost writer doesn't tell me a lot. I base my views on her by watching and reading her. Her own words. Her twitter posts are far more revealing than any ghost written book.

Have you read it Foss?
 
Nice backpedal. So you don't believe or support what's in the article?

I was going for equal time - MM posted pro - I posted against. I thought it was an interesting review. I haven't read the entire book - so I haven't a personal review to post.

MM - have you read the book?

How would you even know this, since you don't listen?

Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.

But thanks for confirming my point. You tacitly admit you deliberately sought out a squishy 'conservative' who's critical of Palin, although you still won't make your point based on that.

But you campaigned for a man who didn't stick out his? :rolleyes:
Ramble ramble...

Because he ran for a more influential office? Well, whatever Foss. She quit - to have more time to pursue personal interests. And believe me, everyone who runs against her will take aim against her on that point. It is a valid criticism.
 
MM - have you read the book?

Yep. And I consider myself sexist and would never vote for a woman to be leader of this Country until now.

We gave the multi-racial guy a crack at it and it didn't work out. Heck I don't know if we'll even survive this guy, but with Palin, I think she would do a much better job surrounding herself with business leaders that would know how to fix what is broken without turning to socialism as the answer.

So coming from a sexist, I think Sara could be our man.

But I am open to other candidates that would uphold our Constitution, support the Bill of Rights, defend our Country with military might, and scale-back, on a massive scale, our government and those employed by it.
 
I was going for equal time - MM posted pro - I posted against. I thought it was an interesting review. I haven't read the entire book - so I haven't a personal review to post.

MM - have you read the book?



Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.



Because he ran for a more influential office?
And she quit to run for a more influential office and yet you protest?

I like the double-standard.

That is the problem inherent in all feminists... they hate strong (and attractive) women that apparently can do it all. It is so strange too. One would think that a feminist, by their nature, would strive to be like that. Guess not.:rolleyes:
 
Got through about 30 pages of it - set it aside - I'll try to get back to it, but honestly-I will probably wait for a friend of mine to tell me the sections to read, I doubt if I will be reading the entire book. It isn't very compelling. And it isn't in her 'own' words. I find that more telling about a person. Filtered through a ghost writer doesn't tell me a lot. I base my views on her by watching and reading her. Her own words. Her twitter posts are far more revealing than any ghost written book.

Have you read it Foss?
It's on my list. I'm in the middle of another book right now.

Not going to comment on it until I read it.

Look at you, still criticizing the book after admitting you haven't read it and aren't going to. But you used the book as the basis for comparing her views to Reagan's, not her twitter posts.

You really should take a step back and look at your own posts. Pathetic.
 
Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.

So you admit you don't even cherrypick, but only read the cherrypicks of others, namely the media whom you ADMIT is biased against Rush.

Perfect. Couldn't have asked for a more revealing answer. Thanks for being honest about your shallowness. Zero credibility whatsoever.

Based on your own standards for being able to comment cogently on a subject, you're incompetent vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh topics.

And Palin's for that matter.


Because he ran for a more influential office? Well, whatever Foss. She quit - to have more time to pursue personal interests. And believe me, everyone who runs against her will take aim against her on that point. It is a valid criticism.
Oooooo, the 'WHATEVER' defense! Oh, man, I just got ZOMGPWNED there! :rolleyes: Wait...Wikipedia doesn't have this in the listing of 'flawed logical arguments.

Oh, that's because it's a 'nonsense emotive' argument.

What about your own theory that Sarah will run for the Presidency? Isn't that a higher office? So if she does, in fact, run for the Presidency, how can that be a valid criticism of her but not of Obama?

Do you believe that Obama's 5-minute career is a valid criticism of him? What about his own admission that he wasn't qualified? You still haven't answered my question about campaigning for a guy who has less experience than Palin.
 
It's on my list. I'm in the middle of another book right now.

Not going to comment on it until I read it.

Look at you, still criticizing the book after admitting you haven't read it and aren't going to. But you used the book as the basis for comparing her views to Reagan's, not her twitter posts.

You really should take a step back and look at your own posts. Pathetic.

This is what I said - I didn't use her 'book' - I used her 'views'...
Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.
And then I stated later where I get my information on her 'views'... twitter posts and speeches.

Maybe you should actually read my posts Foss... The only thing I personally have criticized about her book is the ghost writing - and I would criticize that about any book... the filter effect.
 
This is what I said - I didn't use her 'book' - I used her 'views'...
Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.
And then I stated later where I get my information on her 'views'... twitter posts and speeches.

Maybe you should actually read my posts Foss... The only thing I personally have criticized about her book is the ghost writing - and I would criticize that about any book... the filter effect.
I have read your posts, every single pathetic dishonest one of them.

Maybe you should go back and re-read them yourself, and then get back to me on what you consider credibility to be, reading someone's book or someone's twitter. Hint: Look at the Ayn Rand thread.

Buh-bye now.
 
So you admit you don't even cherrypick, but only read the cherrypicks of others, namely the media whom you ADMIT is biased against Rush.

Perfect. Couldn't have asked for a more revealing answer. Thanks for being honest about your shallowness. Zero credibility whatsoever.

Based on your own standards for being able to comment cogently on a subject, you're incompetent vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh topics.

And Palin's for that matter.


Oooooo, the 'WHATEVER' defense! Oh, man, I just got ZOMGPWNED there! :rolleyes: Wait...Wikipedia doesn't have this in the listing of 'flawed logical arguments.

Oh, that's because it's a 'nonsense emotive' argument.

What about your own theory that Sarah will run for the Presidency? Isn't that a higher office?

Do you believe that Obama's 5-minute career is a valid criticism of him? What about his own admission that he wasn't qualified? You still haven't answered my question about campaigning for a guy who has less experience than Palin.

MM and Foss - she could have run for office easily after she completed her term in Alaska - she quit.

I campaigned for someone who I shared some ideals with. I however mostly campaigned against a ticket that I felt would not represent me, in any way.

I get involved in politics foss - Do you - well, other than bitching about it?

Experience... did you think Eisenhower was a good president foss?
 
MM and Foss - she could have run for office easily after she completed her term in Alaska - she quit.

I campaigned for someone who I shared some ideals with. I however mostly campaigned against a ticket that I felt would not represent me, in any way.

I get involved in politics foss - Do you - well, other than bitching about it?

Experience... did you think Eisenhower was a good president foss?
1. Wrong about Palin. Easily? How myopic. Advice - read the news, try to keep up.

2. Ad hominem trolling

3. Changing the subject, red herring.

4. Why, did you campaign for Eisenhower too?
 
I have read your posts, every single pathetic dishonest one of them.

Maybe you should go back and re-read them yourself, and then get back to me on what you consider credibility to be, reading someone's book or someone's twitter. Hint: Look at the Ayn Rand thread.

Buh-bye now.

Wow - you must be the only one foss... I am impressed, a Fan... ;)

I state where I got my opinions from regarding Palin, and why I somewhat discount the book. Do you think that she changes her ideals in the book from what she has placed forth in speeches or in interviews or on her twitter page? That would be odd...

Oh, I have read and understand Rand far more than you do Foss - however, you can drudge up the old thread if you wish - it isn't that hard discussing Rand with someone who only cursorily understands the veneer of objectivism.
 
Wow - you must be the only one foss... I am impressed, a Fan... ;)

I state where I got my opinions from regarding Palin, and why I somewhat discount the book. Do you think that she changes her ideals in the book from what she has placed forth in speeches or in interviews or on her twitter page? That would be odd...

Oh, I have read and understand Rand far more than you do Foss - however, you can drudge up the old thread if you wish - it isn't that hard discussing Rand with someone who only cursorily understands the veneer of objectivism.
Contradicts what you said about Rand, your ad hominem and sneering notwithstanding.
 
1. Wrong about Palin. Easily? How myopic. Advice - read the news, try to keep up.

2. Ad hominem trolling

3. Changing the subject, red herring.

4. Why, did you campaign for Eisenhower too?

Yes, easily, she would have had almost a year to run. Plus, the opportunity to throw her hat into the ring far before that and use the platform of 'governor' to run for office. It is a pretty common way to run for office.

Ad hominem trolling? Character attacking, or appealing to emotion...

You brought up my campaign efforts, not me foss... I give that change of subject award to you...

And you are using two political figures as an experience comparison. Why just limit it to two?

Do you think that Eisenhower was a good president?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top