« Buyer Beware -- Thyself | Main | O Little Charities of 2010: Sisters of Life »

December 06, 2010



A journalist broke down the cost of Palin's expedition to feed her family; including the cost of traveling by private plane and for lodging, that caribou cost Palin's family $43,000. That's some expensive organic meat...not something the average family could afford to indulge in. My guess? Most of Palin's fellow Alaskans go to the corner store or go without.


Wow, right up there with the campaign wardrobe NON-story. Here's a link to that article which of course did not include an accurate account of how many Alaskans (especially indigenous people) actually do rely on the hunt. http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/12/06/sarah-palin-alaska-hunting-trip-kills-hunts-eats-caribou-family/

Assuming the costs are accurate, I don't think Palin said that this is how she now hunts all the time. (I imagine the TLC folks wanted to find a remote place where they wouldn't run the risk of bumping into anyone else, and they wanted outside people to do the flying. But of course, the article makes no mention of trying to contact TLC or Palin to ask about any of that.)

Considering the fact that so many Alaskans have their own pilot licenses, they would be able to fly themselves to remote areas, not rent a plane. Did the author even try to ask anyone in the Alaskan govt how far the avg hunters travel and how much they spend? Probably not, or if she did, the answer did not fit the spin of the story.

Palin was not suggesting that people should spend that amount of money just to bag a caribou. Those who detest Palin will find any angle to try and put her in a bad light.


I don't think the author of the article has a problem with hunting. In fact, I believe she stated that hunting doesn't bother her. What's at issue is that Sarah Palin continues to promote herself as an average Joe who lives off the land and makes do with not much at all, when clearly she's leaving such a lifestyle farther and farther behind.

It's not about putting Sarah in a bad light. Rather, it's about wishing that she'd stop trying to put herself in the same light that everyday folks live in. She's over "the everyday." It's time to get authentic. At this point, she's just a caricature...who likes meat.


Did I say that the author has a problem with hunting? Umm, no...

You aren't willing to concede that this high-priced trip was probably at the discretion of the producers of the show?

Have you watched any of the episodes? Whereas it does seem that the Palins have purchased a pretty nice RV (altho not a primo one like any typical touring music act) she lives in the same house, she hasn't bought any high-priced planes, boats, other vehicles. Their camping, fishing and hiking on the show have not been hoity-toity expeditions. (As Kate Gosselin is well aware!)

So you think she's beyond "everyday" -- how does that therefore equate her to being a "caricature"? (And you don't think you're trying to put her in a bad light? Riiiiight.)

Perhaps she herself is an extra-ordinary person at this point, but she is still doing typical Alaskan recreational activities. Can the same be said of, say, a Bruce Springsteen who tries to pass himself off as a regular guy when he's living in a mansion, etc? Why not pick on him (or any number of celebrities of that ilk) in the same manner?

Why don't all you critics just enjoy our 49th state's wonders and leave Palin alone?


Why don't all you dime-a-dozen bloggers grow a thicker skin or stay out of the conversation?


No one made you read my "dime-a-dozen" opinion, and I don't see where I'm exhibiting a thin skin. (Refreshingly, you did not resort to a personal attack on me, until sorta now.)

I was challenging what I felt were unfair statements. If you can't back them up, don't stoop. Why not try, "My bad." (Or at least, "Hmmm, guess I didn't think of that.")

Yeah, staying out of the conversation is the choice of some bloggers. I choose to remain an active participant. If that is not what you prefer, you are welcome to leave.


"(And you don't think you're trying to put her in a bad light? Riiiiight.)"

"Why don't all you critics just enjoy our 49th state's wonders and leave Palin alone?"

You came off snarky and presumptive. As I said, thin-skinned. Anyone in the public arena should be able to weather the criticism, as well as embrace the approval. I didn't say anything about Sarah that was as harsh as some of what I've read.

Believe it or not, some of us registered Republicans actually wish Sister Sarah would leave our party alone. Some of us Republicans feel, contrary to what populists think, that it's better to have folks in Washington who can have a dissertation-level discussion of the world's events. The finesse necessary to deal with world leaders isn't found in Sarah Palin. As a military member, I can't imagine having someone who chants, "We win, they lose!" as commander in chief.

At any rate, don't worry...I think she can take the criticism better than you seem to be able to do.


It ain't about "taking the criticism" -- *again* I was challenging your statements, since I feel they were not accurate. Sure, I've heard a lot worse about Palin, but does that mean I should not defend the *deliberately* nebulous comments that people make?

I say no, bec it is thoughtlessness that seeps into idle minds. I'm challenging folks to truly examine these baseless, throwaway comments.

You actually came close this time to an actual point. There are those who think she lacks a grasp on the intricacies of the world-wide political stage. Have you heard her speak about these things at length or have you only seen the msm's sound bites? Is the notorious Katie Couric interview still dominating your view of Palin?

Assuming you actually are a GOP-supporter/military, are you writing her off as C-i-C bec of one reply in one interview? It was on a range of topics, and was not the forum for going into depth about what she would specifically do. Pretty unfair to believe she has no further thoughts on the topic -- why not take a "I'm reserving judgment until I hear more about what she has to say"?

But you've tipped your hand, whichever side you truly support. You think the eggheads in Washington have it all under control, and they don't need the likes of us "populists" outside the beltway presuming we have better ideas.

You would never give Palin, or anyone like her, a chance to elucidate their positions. Your mind is made up and you're sticking to it.


Although, thankfully, you're wrong if you assume that I haven't done anything to learn more about Palin (I read her FB posts, watch Fox News, and have tuned in twice to her TLC show), I can understand your frustration in that you believe her to be worthy of the presidency while most of America does not.


I never said she was ready... or not. It of course depends on what standard you hold.

Is she more ready than Obama? Clearly. But will I settle for her level of readiness? I haven't made up my mind.

Will America again settle for a level as low as Obama's? I don't think so. But just what level *will* they settle for?

The old standard would say you have to have a Romney, but he's also old news, which I'm not sure they're going to go for. The only one that has the balance of everything (except perhaps the charisma factor) is Jindal and he said he isn't running.

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. And I think it would be prudent for all Americans -- including the likes of you -- to do the same.

Everyone said Reagan was unelectable. Things can change. The bottom line for me is taking back the White House -- not electing someone just to get a woman in there or bec I like him/her.

If they would run, my vote today would be for a Christie/Jindal ticket.

The comments to this entry are closed.