MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar

Palin Going Rogue?

Interesting piece from Ben Smith on Politico about how Sarah Palin is reportedly increasingly ignoring the advice of her Republican party handlers, who she blames for her tarnished media image, and “going rogue” in some of her decisions.
Translation: Whether she hurts the McCain campaign or not in the waning days left to McCain to make up lost ground, Palin is going to do her best to try to salvage her own political reputation. Moreover, she’s repeatedly not taken responsibility for her own contributions to the tarnishing of her image: Her glaring inadequacy to be a candidate for the vice-presidency, allegations of abuse of power (Troopergate and the state of Alaska paying heaps of cash for her kids to travel with her), the colossal PR misstep of the $150,000 campaign wardrobe, and Palin’s makeup artist being the highest-paid member of the campaign staff for October.
No matter how you look at it, or which side of the aisle you’re on politically, the McCain camp’s choice of Palin as his running mate was just a huge, huge misstep. Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney would have been much stronger contenders than Palin, but if McCain wanted to be a “maverick” by choosing a woman as his running mate, there were any number of more qualified female Republican candidates he could have chosen. McCain would have been in a stronger position to challenge Obama at the polls next week with just about anyone but Palin as his VP choice.
Any McCain supporters out there who have a different view, with a perspective on why Palin was not a terrible choice in every respect, I’d love to hear why you think so …

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Palin Going Rogue?”

  1. Cadavra says:

    Kim, it’s moderately well-known that McCain wanted Ridge or Lieberman, but the wacko far-right wing of the party (which is to say, the party) pretty much forced Palin on him to shore up a base that still regards McCain as a closet moderate. He doesn’t deserve the blame for picking her, but he does deserves the blame for not having the balls to tell them to fuck off and selecting whomever he wanted. If he can’t stand up to his own party, how can he stand up to…?


Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon