Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 5, 2011 @01:13AM from the bob-dole-doesn't-trademark-his-name dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office in November to trademark her name. On her initial application, Palin listed usage of the trademark for a website featuring information about political issues; and educational and entertainment services, including motivational speaking in the fields of politics, culture, business and values. Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services and that trademarking a name is more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports. 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities, in particular, speaking engagements ... and it looks like she's looking to protect her name with those activities,' says attorney Claudia Ray."

56 of 329 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmmm ... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-05 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
1. Re:Hmmm ... by gclef · 2011-02-05 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!
2. Re:Hmmm ... by publiclurker · 2011-02-05 01:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?
3. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!
  Man, you see how he took that dude down? Guy was like "Sarah Palin is a Clueless Bitch" and he came back with "Nuh-uh, Obama's a Clueless Bitch!" He probably high-fived his keyboard after coming up with that witty bon-mot.
  It's basically the Sunday morning TV news talk shows, distilled to their essence.
  To be fair though, Sarah Palin is pretty much the Platonic ideal of Clueless Bitch. The first poster has accuracy going for him, if not the Oscar Wilde-like ability with the verbal comeback that the second poster showed with his "I know you are, but what am I?"
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Hmmm ... by drinkypoo · 2011-02-05 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama. So what we have is a couple of little bitches, but one is ever so much bitchier than the others.
  Obama has fallen down on his promises again and again. Palin has proven her idiocy time and again. Anyone supporting either of them at this point, however, wins the absolute clueless bitch award. Palin was chosen for unelectability. Obama was chosen for his palatability. END OF LINE.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Hmmm ... by WilyCoder · 2011-02-05 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ^^^ Exactly. In a thread about Palin, they want to discuss Obama.
6. Re:Hmmm ... by wrencherd · 2011-02-05 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
  Probably not. She's a public figure and in that sense she's waived any exclusivity with regard to pretty much any aspect of her public persona.
  
  I know, I know, according to Sean Penn the public doesn't "own" celebrities, but I don't believe that they can be barred or made to pay to satire or critique the activities/opinions of those same famous folk.
7. Re:Hmmm ... by Greyfox · 2011-02-05 02:46 · Score: 3
  
  Now that Ted Stephens is no longer with us, I propose "That jackass from alaska".
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
8. Re:Hmmm ... by uncanny · 2011-02-05 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Can we extend it to the whole year of 2011?
9. Re:Hmmm ... by Hugh+Pickens+writes · 2011-02-05 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Trademark is a geek issue that has been discussed dozens of times on slashdot along with similar intellectual property issues like copyright and patent.
  
  The issue of why a public figure might decide to trademark their name is an interesting one and the comments today have brought forward a number of illuminating answers.
  
  As for being ideological, I strongly suspect the article would still have been published on slashdot if Barack Obama or if John McCain had decided to trademark his name.
  
  --
  Ponca City, We Love You
10. Re:Hmmm ... by Will.Woodhull · 2011-02-05 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  To expand on parent post: Yes, there is the argument that the public doesn't "own" celebrities; that celebrities retain a right to privacy. This applies to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as well as to Barbara Streisand and what's-his-name, the cute little boy action figure actor who is so big on Scientology. All those guys are entitled to some degree of privacy and a certain amount of control over how their name might be used.
  But Sarah Palin has moved herself from that group to another one by her deliberate actions. By taking the oath of office of Governor of Alaska, she made herself an an elected American political figure, and that means she has given ownership of much of her privacy and all aspects of her name to the American public. There is no other way the American form of democracy can work. The right of citizens to constantly examine their elected officials and publish their findings trumps the elected officials' right to privacy. This cannot end when the term of office ends, for there is a pressing need for Americans to be able to examine their history in exquisite detail, to avoid repeating mistakes.
  That Sarah has deserted her responsibilities as Governor before her term was up does not somehow magically make her a political virgin again; the oath that she took is binding for the rest of her life, and beyond, for as long as any historian shows an interest in her. There is no term limit on that oath. She hopped into that bed; no matter how much she might wish for it, she cannot revirginize herself.
  The only way that Sarah can limit her exposure is to move to some country that has stronger protections of its citizen's privacy from journalists than is true for America. North Korea comes to mind.
  
  --
  Will
11. Re:Hmmm ... by Draek · 2011-02-05 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  If your sole measure of success is the money you make, you have far bigger problems than mere cluelessness.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
12. Re:Hmmm ... by sortius_nod · 2011-02-05 09:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You may not have made that argument, but you're definitely embodying the phrase clueless. Money is not a measure of success, and to try and use that to refute that someone is clueless shows your own mental lacking.
  Palin is a moron, we all know this (we as in the rest of the world). To even allow someone this clueless to be in any part of government lowers your reputation with the rest of the world (not that it can get much lower after you had Bush Jr as president).
13. Re:Hmmm ... by matt_gaia · 2011-02-05 11:13 · Score: 2
  
  If things that random /.'s have said would push you towards voting for her, instead of running away as fast as possible after many of the inane (and frankly outright moronic) things that she has said, that just, well further frightens me about the state of our electorate.
14. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  I'm wanting to make as much $$ as I possibly can....the more money I have, the better lifestyle I can live
  If you equate wealth with quality of life, you will probably never have either.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
1st Amendment by Jaysyn · 2011-02-05 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How thick are you? Using her trademark registration "as a club to try to quell speech" is not a literal statement. There is no suggestion of violence. Nobody is claiming that she is somehow going to take the registration, make a knobbly club out of it (perhaps using the techniques of papier mache) and beat people she dislikes with the resultant weapon. Just in case you forgot the start of that sentence by the time you got to the end of it: NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THIS.
  Moron.
2. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You need to pay more attention. It's those in power who routinely try to shut down other's speech. Whether they are left or right seems to matter little. Power corrupts most of them it seems.
  Maybe it's just the human condition, hence the founding fathers' attempts at limiting governments power.
3. Re:1st Amendment by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-05 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  The club is a metaphor ... just like the ponies on /., they represent something other than their specific definitions.
4. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Glenn Beck has used this tactic in the past. It didn't work. But he tried to have DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com shut down because it violated the trademark of his name. But I'm sure if you research this further, you'll see that this tactic is tried time and again by many people of many political walks of life. I have no doubt Palin will try it at some point. Perhaps she'll reserve it for something that is exceedingly offensive or perhaps she'll sue the first liberal blogger that calls her dumb as hair. Either way it is apparent that it is a legal tactic that is irresistible to people.
5. Re:1st Amendment by cyber-vandal · 2011-02-05 01:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
6. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Scott Adams said it best
  When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View
7. Re:1st Amendment by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2011-02-05 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When your opponent literally is a moron, it is an accurate point that illustrates the clarity and honesty brought to the political discourse for which she should not be taking part in because she is a fucking moron.
  If you want to allow these types of carnies to game our political system for their financial gain at the cost of peoples lives and jobs... you're a fucking moron too.
8. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  >>$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  > You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others'
  > speech.
  Interesting... a post from an alternate universe.
9. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
  You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:1st Amendment by nstlgc · 2011-02-05 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I call troll for literally interpreting "as a club" to mean something violent, but I'll bite: So I guess that when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
11. Re:1st Amendment by Culture20 · 2011-02-05 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
  
  You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
  Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean? And does your assurance that he has not heard "people" discuss this topic include non-famous people he associates with?
12. Re:1st Amendment by iter8 · 2011-02-05 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.
13. Re:1st Amendment by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-02-05 04:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
  It's amazing what you can manage to not see when you keep your eyes shut, isn't it?
  Palin has suggested violence against Julian Assange, saying "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?". Several others pundits -- mostly on the right, though I wouldn't be surprised if hear the same nonsense were to come from one or two people on the left -- has made similar calls for violence against Assange, but Palin's is particularly delicious because she then went on to make use of the leaked data to criticize the Obama administration's policy towards Iran.
  Also, "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so." -- Anchorage Daily News
  And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
14. Re:1st Amendment by Goody · 2011-02-05 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It's considered too Marxist / Communist / Nazi by the right. The Fairness Doctrine lives on as yet another crazy bad thing "freedom-hating libruls" are going to do, and is periodically brought up by right wing pundits to rally the ignorant masses, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of coming back.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
15. Re:1st Amendment by jbengt · 2011-02-05 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean?
  Accoring to Wikipedia:
  
  The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
  In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so
  It never required equal time, was dropped in the late 1980s, and with the expansion in broadcast channels available and the decline in over-the-air importance, it has become less important either way. That's not to say I would want it to be policy in our current environment.
16. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-05 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  Chuck Schumner, a senator from New York, has called for the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. Here's the source
17. Re:1st Amendment by Beelzebud · 2011-02-05 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk
  
  Yep just a total fabrication. You poor victimized conservatives... :(
18. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-05 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  It had nothing to do with allowing equal time, but simply required that anybody with a broadcast license give some recognition to opposing viewpoints, even if it's marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored..
  he Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
  I'm not going to link to more quotes from that article, but the "Supporters" section indicates that the Democrats that want to reinstate it want to do so to reduce the effect of right wing talk radio. Whether the original Fairness Doctrine did so or not, a modern one absolutely would be intended to.
19. Re:1st Amendment by Zorque · 2011-02-05 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like there isn't precedent. She got at least one congresswoman she didn't agree with to shut up. This way she can do it without getting called out as a bloodthirsty demagogue!
20. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].
  I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.
  As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.
  And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
21. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
  Strange. And here you are, lying, trying to say that FoxNews won a court case that it is OK to lie. Let me explain.
  First, the report that was at the heart of the case was on a Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. However, Fox lawyers are also FoxNews lawyers, so you could possibly spin it to say FoxNews lawyers argued successfully...
  Next, the case was not about lying at all. It was about a Fox affiliate (affiliate, the same group that shows "The Simpsons", not the channel that shows "The Factor with Bill OReilly") who fired a reporter who refused to air an edited story. The reporter thought the edits made the story false, so she refused to air it and was fired. Note who said the story was false. Not Fox, not the judge, but the person who was suing after losing her job.
  From here:
  
  Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to "lie" in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel's detractors. There's only one problem - the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.
  There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
  To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
  
  Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
  So it wasn't that the court found that it's OK to lie. The court found AGAINST the claims that the edits made the story false.
  But, hey! Let's not the the truth get in the way of your rant about FoxNews lying. It justifies your hatred beautifully. It would be a shame if you were to have to make up some other reason to hate FoxNews for presenting opinions that are not yours.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
22. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, there are plenty of people on this site who, when they have mod points, will use "-1 Troll" as a replacement for "I disagree".
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
What a gip by eedlee · 2011-02-05 01:18 · Score: 2

So now we cant make any more SarahPorn?
Maybe she's not a politician by js3 · 2011-02-05 01:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?

--
did you forget to take your meds?
1. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by fermion · 2011-02-05 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That is the trend right now. The issue is that when one is actually trying to effect change, people like her really screw it up. For instance Sarah Palin came to Houston to speak at a forced birther conference. The conference happened to be held just before the gubernatorial race between the socially conservative Republican incumbent and the fiscally conservative Democratic contender. Now people in Texas are pretty conservative, and while many people don't believe in forcing birth, many are capable of discussing it, even those who do not vote republican. So what did Sarah Palin do: she started with a pitch for the Governor and pretty much insulted everyone that was not going to vote for him. Now remember, Texas is conservative. Many people who voted against the Governor, Perry, did so because he is fiscal liberal(his policies of hiding fiscal incompetence resulted in 25% budget shortfall for the coming budget) while knowing full well that the legislature would remain very socially conservative. While this would mean that no laws would be passed allowed doctors to assist in the suicide of the mother so that the child might live, neither would we have an increase in the number of 12 years girls who sell themselves for lottery tickets knowing they can get a easily available and safe termination. There was not reason for Sarah Palin to promote Perry in such a venue. It did not help the plight of the unborn child. It only helped Sarah Palin the prostitute sell herself.
  And this is why mixing entertainment and politics is wrongs. Entertainment is there to encourage people to pay to here you talk. Politics is there so people can have fair representatives to protect their interests as much as possible. Sarah Palin, as an entertainer, did not protect the interest of the unborn child. She used the unborn child to line her pocket as an entertainer, and in the process reduced the possibility that we as a country can come together and discuss the issue rationally. Now, I don't want to pick on Sarah Palin. There are entertainers on all sides of all issues that are willing to harm the democratic debate to personally promote their earning potential. These people we do not need.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
2. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by ScentCone · 2011-02-05 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Are you really this uninformed, filled with hate, bitter, and angry at the world, or do you just act that way because you think you're scoring some sort of points? Regardless, read up on paid speaking engagements, paid appearances, etc. If you really think that broadcast networks are the only ones who pay political activists and personalities to say what they say, then you're forming a world view based on a huge helping of deliberate ignorance.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:We'll just have to call her something else by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:38 · Score: 2, Funny

It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.
The Summary Answers Itself... by damn_registrars · 2011-02-05 01:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the front page summary:

more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports
She is clearly in entertainment - how many TV shows are about her right now?

She is also in fashion - we all heard about her massive wardrobe budget when she was campaigning with McCain.

And her entertainment is sport - at least to her. She tells us about her heroic helicopter hunting trips, and her husbands awesome snowmobile races. Those definitely count as sport where she is.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Wicked Witch of the West by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 02:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah! I didn't know that. It's gotten to the point that Pelosi could be trademarked too. Nothing tops "We've got to pass it to find out what's in it." It just doesn't get any better than that.
Re:Simple by drinkypoo · 2011-02-05 02:22 · Score: 2

The founding fathers failed when they did not regulate political parties in the constitution. Now we have them anyway, and there's not enough limits on what they are able to do.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IANAL... by mangu · 2011-02-05 02:23 · Score: 2

I'm under the impression that a trademark must be associated with a certain product. That's why there's Linux soap. If Sarah Palin wants to register her name as a trademark, fine, that's her problem, but she cannot keep people from using it for other purposes.
A proud moment by twoears · 2011-02-05 02:48 · Score: 2

A proud moment for the Palin family. Scumbag Levi Johnston must be very happy he got the hell out of Dodge. Problem is, he didn't get out of Bristol in time.
Re:I fear . . . by bobbuck · 2011-02-05 03:44 · Score: 2

By "subject to" you mean there may be products with her branding that you may freely choose to ignore unlike the whims of our president.
That's a relief! by cvtan · 2011-02-05 04:04 · Score: 2

The article says Sarah is out of government. That's a big load off my mind. Now I can lump her in with other mindless celebrities like Paris Hilton and the Kardashian gaggle.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Remember now... by The+Second+Horseman · 2011-02-05 05:09 · Score: 2

Yeah, that's great. Too bad most of the Tea Party supporters seem to be oblivious or unconcerned that a ton of the money flowing into the "movement" is actually coming from some wealthy quarters (Koch Brothers, anyone?). They have no interest in you, your common cause, or any ideology. I'd question whether or not they even really care about the country or society. Folks like that just want to stay on top. They're using the Tea Party to make sure they're unregulated - so they can do whatever they want to their workers, pollute, lower their own taxes, move money around, and make sure that anything they need - infrastructure, pollution cleanup, whatever, are being paid for by the rest of us.
Your genuine dissatisfaction with how things are today is being used by the very people who have caused the situation to line their own pockets. Americans actually think that income is more evenly distributed than it actually is in this country today, and think it should be even more evenly distributed than they think it is. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201008238184.htm
Enjoy serfdom. Because to a large part of that that upper 1%, that's all most Americans will ever be.
Re:Trade marking names by sunderland56 · 2011-02-05 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm sure that all the other women in the world that had the incredible bad luck to be named "sarah palin" have already changed their names.
Re:Simple by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-05 05:17 · Score: 2

First of all, she was a very successful office holder in Alaska. Even after being savaged by the national media, her popularity never fell below 50% when she was governor. Second, she did some pretty amazing and worthwhile things during her governorship.
If you define 'successful' as not getting arrested or indited, then yes. Otherwise, not so much. Remember, she was running against Murkowski Sr., an ancient, decrepit, arrogant fossil. She didn't do very much at all during her (brief) tenure and most of what actually was accomplished was done by her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell (who is now the real governor). Her 'accomplishments' included selling Murkowski's jet and brokering some oil / gas legislation that will likely get overturned in the current legislative session because it has more holes than a MacPro.

At least Sarah Palin loves America and believes in American Exceptionalism. I'd rather have her as President than 0 by a factor of about 1000.
Palin loves herself and not much else. She's a classic demagogue-to-be. If you want American politicians to be shallow, vapid caracatures, then fine, that's your call, but most of us don't think she is suited for running anything much more complicated than a crayon.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Nickname? by greg_barton · 2011-02-05 08:22 · Score: 2

I guess we'll have to start using her Wasilla nickname now: Nutty McNutfucker.
To avoid trademark infringement, by picoboy · 2011-02-05 11:15 · Score: 2

I think we should all just start calling her "She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named".
So... by crusher-1 · 2011-02-05 20:10 · Score: 2

If my family's name is "Palin" this means she owns the rights to my daughter if she's was named Sarah? What about the "prior" art argument? According to howmanyofme dot com there are 790,847 named Sarah, 1,178 people with the sir name of Palin, and 3 people named Sarah Palin. Do the other 3 people have to pay a licensing fee if the former governor get her patent (very likely give the behavior of the U.S. PTO of late)?