Sarah Palin closed her confused resignation speech by quoting a famous American general:
In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”*
Of course, given the depth of Palin’s erudition—like Reagan, she’s “dumb as a fox” to those who watch her press conferences on mute—it should surprise no one that she grabbed the first patriotic-sounding quotation about “advancing” that Google returned and tacked it onto her speech.
This is what passes for knowledge among some conservatives: the ability to quote-mine the internet for something that sounds patriotic. (Google may not be making us stupid, but the same cannot be said for many of them.) Because their paragon of intellectual achievement is a woman who cannot remember what newspapers she reads every day, it is only fitting that Palin’s last words on the national stage—intended to demonstrate that the “easy path” in life paradoxically involves “plod[ding] along” by “sit[ting] down and shut[ting] up,” because everyone knows that “a quitter’s way” is one of perseverance in the face of adversity—should be a misattributed misquotation ripped from its context in a way that conservatives would, under normal circumstances, consider insulting.
In attributing the quotation to General MacArthur, she is disrespecting the life and service of the man who actually spoke something similar to those words; and in analogizing her plight to that of the men who served under the General she disrespected, she is belittling the memory of their sacrifice.
In the winter of 1950, General Oliver Prince Smith and his 1st Marine Division were ordered to march north to the Yalu River, on the border between China and Korea. The order was given by Major General Edward “Ned” Almond, an obsequious lackey with an ego to rival Patton’s who functioned as “MacArthur’s MacArthur [by taking] MacArthur’s vision of what was supposed to happen and [bringing] it directly to Korea, where he employed it, whether it fitted the Korean reality or not” (The Coldest Winter 163). Smith, called “Professor” for his deliberate manner and attention to detail, surveyed the land and determined that the Korean reality didn’t fit MacArthur and Almond’s vision at all, and though he obeyed the command to press north, he did so in a manner that befitted his nickname:
General Almond had already begun to notice that the spearhead was hardly moving at all. We were in fact just poking along—deliberately so. We pulled every trick in the book to slow down our advance, hoping the enemy would show his hand before we got more widely dispersed than we already were. At the same time we were building up our levels of supply at selected dumps along the way. (432)
When the Chinese attacked the 1st Marine Division (19,000 soldiers) with six divisions (60,000 soliders) of its own in the Chosin River Basin, Smith and his soldiers were prepared: by day, they would avoid the roads by moving south through the mountainous terrain, shelling the advancing Chinese from the high ground; by night, they would temper the bitter chill of winter by hunkering down near the dumps Smith had had the foresight to supply.
Smith had calculated the odds of a successful push north, found them wanting, and prepared for the inevitable. So when the vastly outmanned 1st Marine had to move back through the Chosin Reservoir, they were able to inflict massive casualties on the superior Chinese force, which lost 40,000 troops to the 1st Marine’s 561. When a journalist asked how Smith and his men had done so much damage while retreating, Smith replied:
Retreat, hell . . . we’re simply attacking in another direction. (470)
Palin’s hastily convened press-conference and incoherent statement are, to her mind, analogous to Smith’s carefully planned counter-offensive—or would be, if she knew Smith said it. Which means that for her, MacArthur is not a hero to be venerated, but a prop to wheeled out when it’s politically expedient to do so. She cares nothing for the man himself or those under his command. If she did, she would show her respect by doing more than a Google search and pulling the first “good” quotation she found. After all, nothing demonstrates a deep and abiding respect for the military more forcefully than the sort of stunt my freshmen pull.
So Sarah Palin flubbed the quotation and the attribution. So she appropriated the phrase of a man who fought the inane orders of blinkered bureaucrats and took what she so arrogantly dismisses as “the worthless, easy path.” He took what she calls “a quitter’s way out,” laying the groundwork for his success in the face of adversity by “keep[ing his] head down” and “plod[ding] along.” So what: Smith is the quitter. He didn’t even advance in a different direction, he merely attacked.
To go back to an analogy with which Palin is comfortable—basketball—Smith looked at the game plan, surveyed the opposing team, and ran the point in a way that would guarantee a shot at victory. He urged his men to challenge the bigger, stronger team in the lane; to take the charges, shoot the foul shots, and keep the game the close until the buzzer. Palin, however, panicked when the situation on the floor didn’t correspond to her game plan, grabbed the ball and ran crying off the court.
(x-posted.)
*That’s what
53 comments
July 4, 2009 at 2:19 pm
ben
Your argument that she got the quotation, and misattribution, from google, is that you can also get it from google?
July 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm
tomemos
As I wrote over at Acephalous (I’m reposting it here because it involves an accuracy issue):
Two “in fairness” points: First, conservatives may be shockingly tolerant of Palin’s intellect, but I don’t think you could find even a Free Republic commenter to call her the conservative “paragon of intellectual achievement,” or even something close enough to make the hyperbole fair.
Second, she actually didn’t do the “In the words of General MacArthur said” gaffe in the actual speech. Yes, it’s in the written remarks, but if you watch the video what she says is, “Take the words of General MacArthur. He said…” I was disappointed, because I read the speech first and was anxious to see her say that, but it seems that her improvisation served her well there.
July 4, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Walt
The context of the quote is much more interesting than I would have guessed.
July 4, 2009 at 2:47 pm
wilsonrofishing
I have never heard even Palin’s fervent supporters argue that she is ‘the Paragon of conservative intellectual achievement’. However, I have read numerous articles and posts by so-called liberals attempting to laud President Obama’s intellect, even as he continues some of the most reviled policies of the previous administration.
Ignorance exists in abundance in all corners of the political spectrum.
July 4, 2009 at 3:11 pm
SEK
Your argument that she got the quotation, and misattribution, from google, is that you can also get it from google?
Is that the correct quotation is available to anyone with pluck and courage enough to go to Google Book Search instead of relying on the first thing they see. (Which, like I said, is why I get students writing about courage who quote, say…
First, conservatives may be shockingly tolerant of Palin’s intellect, but I don’t think you could find even a Free Republic commenter to call her the conservative “paragon of intellectual achievement,” or even something close enough to make the hyperbole fair.
Don’t make me dig up quotes about how her natural brilliance shines through when talks about energy, but that she needs to study up a little so it’ll shine through when she tackles all those other issues. (Relevant quotations can be found via those first two Hot Air links.)
Second, she actually didn’t do the “In the words of General MacArthur said” gaffe in the actual speech. Yes, it’s in the written remarks, but if you watch the video what she says is, “Take the words of General MacArthur. He said…” I was disappointed, because I read the speech first and was anxious to see her say that, but it seems that her improvisation served her well there.
You think, then, that her official state government home page might have fixed it. But if she didn’t actually say it, I’ll edit for accuracy.
However, I have read numerous articles and posts by so-called liberals attempting to laud President Obama’s intellect, even as he continues some of the most reviled policies of the previous administration.
I don’t think I have to attempt to laud Obama’s intellect, I can just do so: he’s a very smart man and a very savvy politician who, up to this point, is a disappointment on some fronts. But until I see evidence of real evil inaugurated under his watch and with his (even tacit) approval, he gets the benefit of my doubt. Right now, his greatest failings are, as you say, continuations of the previous administration’s policies.
July 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm
SEK
The context of the quote is much more interesting than I would have guessed.
Same here, which is why I spent all morning reading about it. The discrepancy between the context in which it was uttered and the one in which it’s most often evoked can’t be more striking: it’s not, as Palin and others who mistakenly quote MacArthur believe, an excuse for not continuing the fight, but an indictment against the very sort of bureaucratic machinations Palin’s wilted under.
July 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm
DaKooch
In the end it was just Sarah being Sarah AND I believe giving a new meaning to Semper Fi.
July 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm
tomemos
Naturally, intellect is not necessarily incompatible with repellent policies. I’ve never heard anyone accuse Cheney of being an intellectual lightweight. And I wish I could think that Obama’s poor civil liberties record was attributable to a lack of intellect, rather than calculation.
July 4, 2009 at 4:08 pm
tomemos
“Don’t make me dig up quotes…”
Um, I choose to make you dig up quotes, because the “paragon of intellectual achievement” thing doesn’t pass the smell test, and “she is actually intellectually competent” doesn’t match it. Quotes that don’t come from blog commenters would be even better (though of course I specified “not even Free Republic commenters,” so that’s fair game).
July 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm
max
{blink} I feel slightly odd: ‘MacArthur? MacArthur didn’t say that. MacArthur [I’m not checking] said, ‘I will return’.’
OK, now I’m checking. The original form was via Wikipedia:
I suspect the speech originally was meant to invoke ‘I shall return’ and then they decided that was politically infeasible, so they changed it to something else. (‘Get me another MacArthur quote!’) Oopsie.
I’m still weirded out that they thought MacArthur said that, tho.
max
[‘Don’t these people watch Bugs Bunny cartoons?!’]
July 4, 2009 at 4:54 pm
SEK
Just because it’s there:
There’s a whole slew of this strain of praise out there, but you’re right, I should change “many” to “some” up there. (Also, if you’re available for pre-posting copy-editing, I can pay you in, um, books I need to get rid of before I move that I totally wouldn’t be giving away anyway?)
Also, your point about Cheney is dead on: no one calls him “dumb like a fox,” because everyone knows he’s wily smart.
July 4, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Andy Vance
I’ve never heard anyone accuse Cheney of being an intellectual lightweight.
Closer. Let me whisper in your ear.
July 4, 2009 at 5:01 pm
SEK
‘MacArthur? MacArthur didn’t say that. MacArthur [I’m not checking] said, ‘I will return’.’
Honestly, after reading about Smith all morning, I have a hard time believing he actually said “Retreat, hell,” given his professorial reputation. Does that sound like something someone Halberstam describes as “one of the great, quiet heroes of the Korean War[, whose] heroics lacked a certain drama[, and who] was highly professional, wary of hubris, almost deliberately non-charismatic, and most important of all, respectful of his enemies” (430) would say?
July 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm
SEK
Andy, I can top that. (Hoisted! and by own petard! Damn you meddlesome kids!)
July 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm
tomemos
Andy, fair point. I certainly wasn’t saying that Cheney is an intellectual heavyweight, or even a welterweight; just that no one thinks he authorized torture because of his poor intellect.
July 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Charlieford
File under “it actually can pay to cruise the National Review now and again even though it is, admittedly, painful”: Jonah Goldberg puts his finger, inadvertently perhaps on what riles so many people about Palin. (And coming from him it’s actually more valuable than if it was from her ideological opposites.)
He writes in an open letter (ironically, dated yesterday): “You’re blowing it . . . you’re still taking flak, but not because you strike fear in the hearts of Democrats. You’re taking flak because you’re striking fear in the hearts of Republicans. . . . You do seem to think the best advice is for you to stay just the way you are. . . every time I see you on TV, you’re whining about unfair press coverage. . . . Politics is ultimately about persuasion, and you seem entirely uninterested in that, preferring instead to play the victim. . . . Second, peddling a few platitudes and truisms about free markets and limited government is no substitute for really knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, you can talk well about the stuff you know — oil drilling, energy, etc. — but beyond your comfort zone, you fall back on bumper-sticker language that sounds fine to the people who already agree with you but is useless in winning over skeptics. President Bush had the same problem you do, which is why there’s a hunger for Republicans who can effectively articulate and sell our policies and philosophy . . .”
In other words, she’s self-satisfied in a way the intellectually lazy and mediocre have no right to be, certainly not when they’re angling for national office. Certainly not after the people who have had their full of that kind of numb-skull-populism for the last eight years.
Then she goes on to prove he’s right the same day by a) insisting she’s fully explained her decision to quit while b) quoting a refrigerator magnet that advises “Don’t explain.”
What I found more scary than anything was the strong sense you get that she wrote this herself (the bizarre grammar, the capitalizations, the exclamation marks) and that she apparently didn’t feel the need to ask anyone to give it a look over. (Presumably someone might have flagged the more grating incoherences?) That fits in with her philosophy of “You can’t blink, Charlie.” And it indicates that this really is her governing philosophy, that her problem isn’t that she’s “not ready” for the national stage, that she needs more “seasoning” or “preparation.” That she is, after all, a grown woman, and that she’s not going to be maturing beyond what we see.
Which for someone like me, who’s most important test of a presidential aspirant is “How would they have done during the Cuban Missile Crisis?”, makes the prospect of a Palin presidency really quite terrifying.
July 4, 2009 at 7:42 pm
ari
She can see Russia from her front porch, Charlie. What more do you want?
July 4, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Charlieford
As long as she stays on that porch, I’m good.
July 4, 2009 at 8:40 pm
JPool
I’m confused. Did Silbey write this post?
Listening to her speech today, the thing that struck me most was the two or three times where she said “I’ve already explained [why I’m resigning].” First of all she didn’t. The closest she got was saying that she didn’t want to do what other lame-duck governors had done, so instead of, you know, governing she was resigning (there was also something about needing to fight for something and against something else, and the whole governing thing was getting in the way of that). But, more importantly, if you’re not answering questions, saying that you’ve already explained a point would seem to indicate that your sense of control over your own speech has gone badly off the rails.
July 4, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Sir Charles
I’m glad you jumped on this. To have Smith’s words misappropriated and put into the mouth of that douche bag MacArthur is infuriating. Any of the marines who fought at the Chosin Reservoir would likely concur.
But it’s perfect that a dumbass like Palin
July 4, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Sir Charles
would make this mistake. grrrr.
July 4, 2009 at 9:03 pm
max
Honestly, after reading about Smith all morning, I have a hard time believing he actually said “Retreat, hell,” given his professorial reputation. Does that sound like something someone Halberstam describes as “one of the great, quiet heroes of the Korean War[, whose] heroics lacked a certain drama[, and who] was highly professional, wary of hubris, almost deliberately non-charismatic, and most important of all, respectful of his enemies” (430) would say?
Well, I’m thinking three things: 1) I’ve always heard this quote attributed to ‘a Marine’, which doesn’t mean much in this context, 2) Smith was a Marine and 3) Halberstam may have overplayed Smith’s professorialness. (I note here, that Halberstam’s description of Patton as an egomaniac belies the fact that part of the whole ‘Blood & Guts’ thing was a deliberately cultivated act. Patton was an excellent commander; Almond is another matter. Halberstam appears to be taking staunch sides in the Smith-Almond feud.)
However, the wikipedia page sources the Time story here which says:
The Belleau Wood comment, BTW, should be taken more as exasperated exhaustion than bravado: that unit had marched some 20 miles to get to the front line that day (if I remember correctly) and with the choice being between countermarching 20 miles to the rear with the Germans on their heels the whole way, or counter-attacking, it probably seemed easiest to simply attack.
Smith’s quote is an echo, but it’s also a ironically-accurate description, since 1st Marine really was attacking out of the pocket it was trapped in. Whether Smith said it or whether a clever correspondent polished what Smith actually said, I cannot say.
This also reminds me of the quote I read from a very young Marine enlisted man, circa 2006, who said something like, ‘Marines never retreat!’ Feh. My thought response to that was ‘Oh, hell yes they do, kid. You had best hope when the time comes that your commander orders you to retreat.’
max
[‘Dispatches from magic pony world.’]
July 4, 2009 at 9:13 pm
max
She can see Russia from her front porch, Charlie. What more do you want?
Fruitbaskets, pie and ponies.
max
[‘She’s set to star in the world’s first reality TV show about lobotomies!’]
July 5, 2009 at 8:01 am
silbey
I’m confused. Did Silbey write this post?
Military history is a broad church.
July 5, 2009 at 8:42 am
TF Smith
In “The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-53” Clay Blair cites the quote to the the official history (US Marine Operations in Korea, III) and the Dec. 18, 1950, article in Time. In the book, he cities Smith saying that in a situation where there was “no rear” there was no such thing as a “retreat” and concludes with the “We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different durection” version. He also has a footnote in the text that the “retereat, hell” version was a “slightly toughened” quote that entered USMC lore, as a direct parallel to the Belleau Wood quote.
From Blair’s book, Smith reads like an excellent example of an infantry division commander.
I’d also echo the point made above that Patton’s “ego” was, at least in part, a conscious choice as a leadership style; reading his letters (granted, as edited by Farago) a very different man emerges from the protrayal shown in (for exmaple) the film. Carlo D’Este’s “A Genius for War” is a well-rounded biography.
Almond has a very poor reputation, for some very real reasons; a comparison if his command of the 92nd division in WW II and X corps in Korea might make for an interesting article.
There are a couple of excellent papers on divisional and corps commanders in WW II that have come out of C&GS in the past deacde; leadership and effectiveness at that level of command is probably under-emphasized in comparison to army, army group, and theater-level command.
Regimental and battalion level is even more overlooked, although Blair’s book gives an example of how it can be done.
July 5, 2009 at 10:21 am
aschup
Also.
July 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
SEK
What I found more scary than anything was the strong sense you get that she wrote this herself (the bizarre grammar, the capitalizations, the exclamation marks) and that she apparently didn’t feel the need to ask anyone to give it a look over.
As I pointed out when G.C. pointed this out, if I’m going to defend Sotomayor on this issue, what goes for Sotomayor goes for Palin too. Only Palin’s got the stronger case, as those are obviously idiosyncratic diacriticals.
I note here, that Halberstam’s description of Patton as an egomaniac belies the fact that part of the whole ‘Blood & Guts’ thing was a deliberately cultivated act. Patton was an excellent commander
Does anyone ever claim that he wasn’t? I had a “Patton phase” when I was an undergrad, but I never got the sense that War As I Knew It was a deliberately cultivated act. However, given that I wouldn’t have been able to tell whether it was or wasn’t when I was reading all those Patton biographies, I’ll take your (now seconded) word for it . . . and pick up the D’Este while I’m at it.
July 5, 2009 at 11:12 am
total
Halberstam’s description of Patton as an egomaniac belies the fact that part of the whole ‘Blood & Guts’ thing was a deliberately cultivated act. Patton was an excellent commander
Note also that I’m not sure that the two are exclusive.
July 5, 2009 at 12:57 pm
mike00000000001
One of the dumbest things in the world is when a person tries to judge the head knowledge and character of a person from just one qoute from that person.
Do you know the woman in person?
Do you live in Alaska?
Do you know what all her policies have been as governer?
How many times have you personaly interveiwed Palin or tested her knowledge?
Are you her husband?
How many of her freinds do you know personaly??
IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE PERSON, THEN YOUR POST IS OBVIUOUSLY BOGUS. SO DO YOU OR DON’T YOU?
July 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm
mike00000000001
Let me give you a lesson in psychology. A person can slip up and not be knowledgeable about some things, but still be a super genius in other areas. This of course makes presumtions about the persons knowledge based on one qoute even MORE stupid. Mr. Obama, the one you consider so intelegent, mispoke several times.
Knowledge is not ALL OR NOTHING. Its not that black and white. Its based on the laws of memory. the more you study something, the more you will know about THAT something. Psychology students are laughing at you today.
July 5, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ben Alpers
Better trolls, please.
July 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm
mike00000000001
Im not a troll, Im a person who thinks hard and deep about things. I don’t get paid as I don’t have a job. Besides, try to think about what I’m saying instead of just calling me a troll. What Ive said about knowledge is true. Plus I’m actually working on a degree in psycology.
July 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm
dana
One of the dumbest things in the world is when a person tries to judge the head knowledge and character of a person from just one qoute from that person.
Fortunately we’ve had a whole campaign season.
Plus I’m actually working on a degree in psycology.
My foot.
July 5, 2009 at 1:36 pm
mike00000000001
I do study psych. Do you know what implicit learning is? Do you know what the prefrontal cortex is? Anyway you make somewhat of a point, but keep in mind campaigns don’t always reveal EVERYTHING.
July 5, 2009 at 1:37 pm
mike00000000001
In fact some candidates have become expert liars.
July 5, 2009 at 1:42 pm
mike00000000001
case in point, Obama backpedals on whether or not he heard that racist pastor. If you’ve been watching all the videos, you would see the contradiction. At one point Obama said he was pro life, then behind everyone’s back he does that overseas abortion thing. Anyways, have a great day and may kindness and small government increase throughout the world. Peace out.
July 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm
SEK
What is it with me lately? (Scroll down . . . if you dare!)
July 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm
eric
“lately”?
July 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm
ben
Is that the correct quotation is available to anyone with pluck and courage enough to go to Google Book Search instead of relying on the first thing they see
Ok, but I’m sure that if I did a book search I could discover that it was not W.C. Fields who said that no one who hated children and animals could be all bad, but rather a much less famous comedian introducing Fields. And yet if I had said that Fields had said that, that would not be evidence that I found it via google. I actually can’t remember where I first heard it; it’s just one of those quotations-plus-misattributions that floats around.
There’s plenty of actually verifiable sloppiness and baffling stupidity on Palin’s part. There’s no need also to aver that she found this quotation by doing what you may well have excellent reason to believe your students do.
This is, for one thing, a really specific sort of quotation about advancing, one that probably, in her view, really does fit her situation. Why would she just be searching for patriotic quoations about advancing?
July 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
mah29001
Oh boy. Getting a quote from MacArthur and using his quote…so “unpatriotic” and “disrespectful” to American troops. News flash.
Although I don’t like the fact she resigned as she needs the experience for the top Executive position if she’s indeed running in 2012. This is a cheap shot at Palin by the far left whom would nit pick at her anytime she speaks. I believe her own family members are on the battlefield in Iraq.
Wonder when will you complain about some “peace” protesters whom refer Iraqi and Afghan terrorists as “freedom fighters” of their country to be un-American?
July 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm
jim
You lefty-pathetic progressives have nothing better to do than attack Sarah Palin because you all fear that she can be the one to topple your beloved Bama dude in 2012. She represents a REAL American. Not apologetic to dictators, not Chicago thug politics, not threatening hopitals, car companies, wall street, etc. and small businesses to get what she wants, not setting up press conferences with pre-screened questions, not using the race card every chance she gets, not blaming the past administration (over and over again like a broken record) to distract the people from the real problems, not hiding her birth certificate like your beloved Bama dude does every day…She has the power to take down all you greedy, corrupt leftys!!! And if she so chooses. she WILL!
July 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm
max
Im not a troll, Im a person who thinks hard and deep about things.
I bet you’d like to think hard and deep about Sarah Palin, wouldn’t you?
She represents a REAL American. Not apologetic to dictators, not Chicago thug politics, not threatening hopitals, car companies, wall street, etc. and small businesses to get what she wants, not setting up press conferences with pre-screened questions, not using the race card every chance she gets, not blaming the past administration (over and over again like a broken record) to distract the people from the real problems, not hiding her birth certificate like your beloved Bama dude does every day
Plus, she loves torture, secret prisons and totally supports the annihilation of freedom of speech? What’s not to like????!!
max
[‘Boobies uber alles! Dictator for Life!’]
July 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Ben Alpers
Internet Traditions Alert:
“Better trolls, please” is a common trope, used to express disgust at a particularly pathetic piece of trolling while not engaging with its “substance,” as the latter alternative would constitute “feeding the trolls.”
“Better trolls, please” is not an actual request for additional trolling of any sort.
Now that we’ve cleared that up, please go away!
July 5, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Colin
We could distract them. Anyone have something ready on R*n P**l or the C*v*l W*r?
July 5, 2009 at 5:48 pm
SEK
Why would she just be searching for patriotic quoations about advancing?
For the same reason that a student writing an essay about a courageous deed or person would want to quote someone famous on the topic of courage: because they incorrectly assume that the quotation itself has a moral authority that is somehow, magically, transferred to their argument by dint of proximity. Palin wants to give the impression of being patriotic, so she grabs a quotation willy-nilly and slaps it on the end of her speech. Part of the reason I suspect her of doing this is that her being a terrible student is a matter of public record, and such acts of ostentatious quotation are something terrible students regularly do.
Now, I could be wrong. She might have some Bartlett’s knock-off on her desk and consulted it instead of Google, but even so, the point remains: she’s trying to appropriate gravitas she doesn’t have and can’t earn; she’s trying to fake an erudition she doesn’t have and is too lazy to acquire; she’s trying to convince us that there is something heroic, something martial about her hasty exit from the public stage and she thinks that quotation will do some of the work for her.
Except, when you look at it in context, it doesn’t. Does just the opposite, in fact: it highlights the flightiness of decision-making process, such that it is; it foregrounds her unpreparedness, both for the national stage and for whatever petty “slings and arrows,” as she called them, some petty bureaucrats sent her way.
As for the Google question, there are good and bad ways to use Google, and because it is so easy to use correctly, improper usages signify some hardcore intellectual laziness, lack of curiosity, &c.
July 5, 2009 at 6:02 pm
SEK
Getting a quote from MacArthur and using his quote…so “unpatriotic” and “disrespectful” to American troops.
My Dearest Troll,
Before criticizing a post, it is best to read said post, lest you commit the very same error 96 percent of the post sets about correcting. Otherwise, people will assume you have read 100 percent of the post but, through sheer force of stupid, missed the point and still believe MacArthur uttered those words. Had you but skimmed the post, you would have noticed that he did nothing of the sort, and that, in your lazy zeal to demonstrate your love of troops and country, you re-inadvertently disrespected the memory and sacrifice of General Smith just like Palin did. While that might, to you, be a badge of honor to repeat the indiligent idiocy of your beloved Palin, everyone else here is laughing riotously at your display of hypocritical stupidity.
Yours Truly,
SEK
P.S. Trying to impress college professors with your highfalutin use of “whom” only works when you use it correctly.
July 5, 2009 at 7:40 pm
ignobility
Indiligent idiocy
Now that is good snark.
July 5, 2009 at 10:13 pm
tomemos
She represents a REAL American. Not apologetic to dictators, not Chicago thug politics,
Is Chicago not American? I’m so bad at geography; it’s in Canada, isn’t it?
Anyway, clearly Palin represents good ol’ Alaska thug politics.
not threatening hopitals, car companies, wall street, etc. and small businesses to get what she wants,
No indeed. Just libraries.
not setting up press conferences with pre-screened questions,
Or any press appearances at all, if possible.
not using the race card every chance she gets,
Just the liberal media card.
…not hiding her birth certificate like your beloved Bama dude does every day…
I love the image of him hiding it every day, today in the cupboard, tomorrow under a pillow, like an Easter egg or an afikomen in some never-ending celebration.
She has the power to take down all you greedy, corrupt leftys!!! And if she so chooses. she WILL!
It’s a good thing she’s so opposed to thugs and dictators.
Okay, that was junk food, but it was worth it.
July 6, 2009 at 3:44 am
Lady Peralta
What a wonderful post. Thank you, I needed a good laugh. I bow to your superior knowledge and your excellent posts and intelligent commentators (minus the trolls) , you all are the reason I love the interwebs. I shall now return to lurking.
July 6, 2009 at 5:40 am
silbey
She represents a REAL American
She does? Who? Just one? Alaska’s that small?
July 6, 2009 at 6:24 am
dana
You lefty-pathetic progressives have nothing better to do than attack Sarah Palin because you all fear that she can be the one to topple your beloved Bama dude in 2012.
Don’t throw me in that briar patch!
July 6, 2009 at 10:09 am
Carlos
When will people who live in America discontinue the rhetoric of separation? We are all Americans even though you are born ignorant enough to follow someone as ignorant as Sarah Palin. Please dont be a fool all your life.
July 7, 2009 at 11:35 am
Chris
I do like mike00000000001’s (probably unintentionally) Zen-like final comment, though, the wish for small government to “increase throughout the world”. How much can it increase and still be small government? It’s like a political version of the paradox of the heap. For that I almost forgive the rest of his contributions (if you can call them that) to this thread.