Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced Thursday that she would step down by the end of the month and not seek a second term as governor, allowing her to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

....     


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

sorry, just.. I can't believe that ANYONE believes she has any business even running for president.

Oh god!! Give me cancer now lord! ::)

LOL!!! I don't think she's in touch with reality much these days.  The fact she would do something like that shows just how gullible she really is (for every dog you see dead on the side of the road there's a cat in the bushes saying "Go ahead...you can make it") - No offense I love doggies and kitties. It would be a sad day in the US should a travesty like that occur.

The way that other possible candidates keep spontaneously combusting, she may be the best that the republicans have to offer in 2012.

Oh yeah, Sara, run on that family values platform again.  Who knows, maybe you can get John McCain to be your VP!

And while you are at it, see if David Letterman will return your phone calls...

-Sandy

So she's kicking off a 3 1/2 year run for the White House with a bonehead move.  Failing to finish out her term is not going to help her.

Joke: In a related story, Jenna Bush has announced that she is running for President in 2016, the first year she will be old enough to meet the Constitutional requirement that the President must be at least 35 years old.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on July 03, 2009, 03:37:22 PM
Failing to finish out her term is not going to help her.

she's finishing out her term, just not running for re-election.  I have to wonder what would happen if she ran for re-election and lost, that would be a death blow to her presidential aspirations* and is a reasonable scenario. her approval has plummeted from 80% favorable in alaska to below 60% ever since she decided that running for president 4 years in advance was more important than running her home state.


*_{who am kidding, those aspirations died long ago. she just doesn't realize it}

Quote"We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities," Palin said in a news conference alongside a lake in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.

I have tried and tried but I simply cannot understand what the hell she said.

I take that back, she'll be a fine candidate.  Just not an intelligent one.

-Sandy("Drill, baby, drill!")

"I can see Russia from my house!"

Seriously, she needs to just be locked away, she's insane in the membrane!  :D

Quoteshe's finishing out her term, just not running for re-election.

She said that she planned to hand over the reins of the state government to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who would be sworn in at the governor's picnic in Fairbanks later this month.

Quote from: beth~chella on July 03, 2009, 03:44:16 PM
she's finishing out her term, just not running for re-election.

No, her term will not have expired.  She will be running for president as a less-than one term governor of a state with a population smaller than the city of Indianapolis.

I think she has let Limbaugh's praise swell her head.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she wants Limbaugh as a running mate.  Or maybe Nancy Grace.

Her term has NOT expired.  (Exactly where do government offices change in August, not even in Alaska?)   I thought when they picked her she was going to be the gift that keeps on giving, and she is surpassing my wildest expectations.

Dear Obama-

Please, PLEASE do not alienate enough swing voters to lose the next election.

I figure it this way, and give any option even odds.

One:  Someone has something very real (legally serious) on her.

Two:  She was upset that Michael Jackson dying was getting so much coverage and decided to upstage him.

Three:  As the old song says "the lure of easy money has a very strong appeal."  Books, speaking, gig on Faux News = million$$$$.

Four:  She really is that stupid/crazy.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 03, 2009, 05:23:22 PM
She said that she planned to hand over the reins of the state government to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who would be sworn in at the governor's picnic in Fairbanks later this month.

how weird, when I first heard of this it was just her not seeking reelection, but yea - she's stepping down. that's even weird by palin standards.

This is just mind boggling. she spent a year as the gov. the 6 months as a VP candidate the another 6 months just barely in touch with the rest of the state. then she dropped this bombshell. two years of executive experience? that's real presidential material.  The Alaska republican leadership is just flabbergasted, they had no waring this was coming, no floating of trial balloons.
jest boom. " I am going to throw every promise i ever made to my fellow alaskan in the honey bucket.. I have bigger fish to fry". Yaa Shurr, ya bet cha.
Its painfully obvious  that she is just going to start fundraising for a 2012 prez bid. something that was too troublesum to do as a working gov.

Hopefully the American public will see through this transparent brew ha ha
Wake up and smell the honey america.
The smell of that "honey" is not sweet.
(fyi a honey bucket is a bucket used as a toilet when you have no indoor plumbing)
Her term was up in 2010

This is not some brilliant political strategy.  Most likely its going to be the three Political Es - Embezzlement, Extortion and (tax) Evasion.  (If you have either of the first two, you got the third one.)  She has never been able to explain that house and how they got it built.  Or what kind of deals her 'First Dude" backroomed while she was the Gov

I smell scandal, with federal charges attached.  Especially given when the news was leaked, on the verge of a three day holiday when the news cycle is down, and everyone is worried about Michale Jackson.

Either that, or she really is Bats**t crazy.

And speaking of that, the Republicans still have Michele Bachmann to run.

She is bats**t crazy, I suspect - and one of those "righteously religious" characters too.  She suggests that schools should teach both theories (creationism & evolution), despite the huge difference in scientific qualification between the two.

Oh the stupid....it burns!

Quote from: lisagurl on July 03, 2009, 03:09:38 PM
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced Thursday that she would step down by the end of the month and not seek a second term as governor, allowing her to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

Nothing that happened today except speculation states she is running in 2012.

It's nowhere in her announcement.

---

Post Merge: July 03, 2009, 11:04:22 PM

---

Quote from: Fae on July 03, 2009, 04:06:10 PM
"I can see Russia from my house!"

Seriously, she needs to just be locked away, she's insane in the membrane!  :D

Why are you quoting Tina Fey to prove Sarah Palin is stupid?

---

Post Merge: July 04, 2009, 12:11:04 AM

---

Quote from: finewine on July 04, 2009, 12:58:45 AM
She is bats**t crazy, I suspect - and one of those "righteously religious" characters too.  She suggests that schools should teach both theories (creationism & evolution), despite the huge difference in scientific qualification between the two.

And yet, while wielding the power as governor to act on all the "family value" stuff...she didn't.

I'm surprised so many people are so convinced right wing politicians will - or CAN - enact the policies they are worried about.

Usually it's just red meat for the base. both parties have there version of it and neither bunch means it.

I frankly agree that she won't be an impressive candidate in 2012 and she's getting a lot of bad advice, or ignoring it, if she runs so soon. But a LOT of people wrote of Ronald Reagan as a lovable goof for years before he was elected to. If she's smart enough to wait until say 2020, you'd be unwise to underestimate her chances.

I won't try to argue against anyone who disagrees with her social politics policies - I'd be stunned to find anything else on a community like this BUT...

those who argue that she's inexperienced or unready or unproven or even that not finishing out her first term is a black mark....ought to consider that it's highly likely the voted for an inexperienced and unready and unproven politician who hadn't finished even one term in state-wide office when he ran for - and was elected - president.

There are reasons to criticize Palin, but a lot of those same reasons indict a certain other politician you may have heard about.

---

Post Merge: July 04, 2009, 01:19:55 AM

---

Quote from: Mister on July 03, 2009, 07:20:55 PM
Dear Obama-

Please, PLEASE do not alienate enough swing voters to lose the next election.

He's well on his way. But it's not really her time (if you assume it ever will be). The smart play for her is to stay out of 2012.

don't be surprised if she challenges the sitting GOP senator up for re-election in 2010. If you remember Palin took out Murkowski the elder to become governor and the only reason Lisa Murkowski is a senator is because daddy paved the way. Word is that the REAL dim-bulb female in Alaska politics is Lisa, not Sarah. (also potentially the corrupt one too)

If Palin grabs that Senate seat it will be a nice place to get onto the Washington stage and build credibility on national issues while biding her time until 2016 or 2020.

I'll say it again - those who write her off as an idiot are doing so through the lens of their political leanings, not based on what Palin has done (A few butchered interviews aside)

It may sound like I'm a Palin cheerleader. I'm not. Politically I'm a cynic and don't really support anyone who actually has a prayer.

But I can see how people on both sides misread the other side because of political bias and mythology.

Palin - like all politicians - is wrong on a lot of stuff - but Palin - like all politicians - is anything but an idiot. Idiots don't rise to that level.

As an Alaskan i just want an effective governor. is she crazy?
i don't think so but i think she is ill advised or showing that her judgment is not sound. I think she has abandoned every alaskan's interest, to follow this pipe dream of hers.

My initial thoughts were, it's a bonehead move to resign, if she's running for President in 2012.  Now, having heard some analysis on the news, I surmise that she is not running for anything.  I forget who said, "Political suicide", but that's what resigning as governor is for her.  Actually, more like political euthenasia.  Her political career is over.

The stage for the 2012 election is already turning into a circus.

There's a lot of speculation why Palin resigned before her term was up.  Many think it's to free herself up for higher office. 

I don't think we'll see her run for office again, unless someone comes in and does a complete personality makeover on her.  If she can't handle being governor of Alaska how can she handle the office of president?

My guess is she thought winning an election was just the same as winning a beauty pageant.  When you win everyone loves you, wants your autograph, wants to have their picture taken with you, etc.  All you have to do is look pretty and smile.  She's a ditz.

Her countless clueless comments proved she knew nothing about politics ("What does a VP do?")  You have to know SOMETHING in order to be an effective politician, even in Alaska.  Even her resignation speech was a mess.  Who could follow what she was saying?

She embarrassed the voters of Alaska by showing the world they voted on good looks and a folksy image.  I guess it didn't hurt to be a moose hunter either.  I don't think they were too happy the person the voted in as governor made them look stupid.

She quit because couldn't handle the pressure of political office.  Now she knows what it's like to have people critical of you and your life.

But someone will come along with a wad of cash and get her to put her face out in the public eye again.  CNN said she draws a lot of people, even it it's only to see a car wreck.

Julie

You don't quit a lower office halfway though to run for higher office.  Or, if you do, know that it does not work.

So, ask a simple question.

What exactly makes power hungry publicity whores leave the power and the spotlight? 

If your thinking - "gee Kat, I've never heard of such a thing happening in my life."  You're probably right.  It doesn't. 

If you're thinking - "gee Kat, perhaps she is leaving to find more power and more publicity."  You might have a winner there.  So she could do speaking tours, book deals and get a slot on Faux News and become a female Pat Buchanan, make huge amounts of money (compared to what the Gov of Alaska can legally make) and become not just the Gov of Alaska (who up to this point in US history was one of the most unnoticed persons in US politics - I mean really, name me one other Gov of Alaska?) but a STAR of network TV (OK, cable, but at least its TV, and there is very little that people like her will NOT do to be on TV) while preaching to the choir of her most devoted wingnuts for big bucks.  That I could see. 

But, if you thought like I do - always look on the dark side of life - then your first thought, as mine was - was - "Who's got what on her?"  Alaska, unnoticed among its closest competitors (Jersey and Illinois) is one very corrupt little state.  Few people, huge amounts of money making resources that require state aid and help to get to and (comparatively to say Iowa or Mississippi) awash in money they have had lots of good charges against political types (including their last senator) over the years dealing with the routine political money crimes, embezzlement, extortion, sweetheart deals, quid pro quo arrangements, kickbacks, and bribes.

So, I think that's the most likely way to go.  It makes sense the easy way, which is often the true way.  They got her - or even more likely, her hubby, who is kind of a creepy backroom guy in a snowmobile parka - on something real.  Any, and indeed all, of those crimes come with an almost mandatory income tax evasion charge, which gets the Feds into the game.

It's probably way easy to pull some stuff past the state guardians of Alaska, but when the Feds get you in their sights, you're going down.  Their power and resources are for all purposes limitless, and make no mistake about it, their people are very good and once they bite down they are like a pit bull with no lipstick, they don't let go.  Ask anyone who has been involved in a federal investigation how easy it is to get out of it - but you're going to have to write to them in jail I bet.

[ed. note:  For the sake of comparison, SF has a 60% rate for unsolved homicides, and a low conviction rate for just about everything else.  The rate of conviction for people arrested by the FBI is right around 95%, meaning, that when the FBI arrests you, they have you dead to rights, it's as close to airtight as a criminal charge gets.]

The timing is very, very suspicious too.  A deader news time - Friday afternoon before a 3 day holiday - is the traditional place to try to bury news you don't want others to really notice.  That not where you make some important announcement, its where you try to hide the bad stuff.  So since I tend not to think that major stuff like this happens without a reason, I'm looking for an obvious reason, and the obvious reason is - scandal.

Or, she really is major league weird.  That might work too.




You have to know SOMETHING in order to be an effective politician, even in Alaska.*

*Offer void in Texas and California

In the scandal department, I have never believed that Trig was Sarah's baby.  A person as visible as a governor keeping a pregnancy secret?  Then flying from Dallas to Alaska to give birth, after her water broke?

It's really really going to take some self discipline for me to get used to the fact that moving in the LGBT world means I'm in a tiny 3% or so minority on every political subject.

I think I'll keep my head down and my mouth shut, lol.

Laura, what is it that professional gamblers, physicists and historians all know and put into use?  Play the odds.

If you are betting the NBA championships, don't bet against the Phil Jackson team.  Though there are circumstances that might have the pencil fall up and not down, bet on it falling down.  If a major political figure up and quits for no reason - bet there is a very real reason.  And in this case, its not political genius.

Historically that reason has been either: a) they can cash in, or b) they are in deep doo-doo.

Hell, Mark Stanford still has not quit and he was caught dead to rights.  Nor did Vitter (and he was paying hookers to play infantilism games with him - wow).  So something very weird is going on.  Or, its the dough Roper.

And that's not pub/dem, lib or conservative, its across the board.

QuoteSo something very weird is going on.

Oh, I believe that. And I'm not at all convinced that there isn't a scandal coming (although I'm likewise convinced that it would not necessarily be one she's guilty of - since there have been MANY scadals so far but no finding of fault).

I'm less convinced she's setting up a run for the presidency. That doesn't add up. My best guess is she won't make that run until her daughters are all grown or close to it.

That said, she got where she is BY being unconventional. And her calling card is "mom first" - so i would also not be at all surprised if she is simply saying "I won't put my family through more of this crap" with the Letterman incident being the decisive moment.

What you said about "cashing in" is almost like predicting tomorrow's sunrise. Every report says she is still a rock star in GOP circles. Even at that dinner party that some though was FUBAR because of the mix up over whether she would attend, when she did show - even though not speaking - she was the darling of the crowd.

there is no logical reason why a person would NOT "cash in" on that popularity with a book deal and high paid speeches and the like. No reason, short of quitting politics altogether, why you would not build up a reserve of political IOUs (like Guliani did for the 4 years previous to 2008) by stumping around the country for 2010 candidates.

That's the OBVIOUS thing to do and being critical of that would be nothing but just a function of criticizing a person because they are on the wrong side of the issues.

now - if the argument is that she quit so that she could cash in (financially and politically) then yes, that's a legitimate criticism. but it's also a rigged game because it can't be proven either way.

If she quit for legitimate personal reasons, she would cash in
If she quit for selfish political motives, she will cash in.

So either way her defenders and her detractors both get to choose and believe the spin that suits there preconceptions.

There's no reason in that.


The thing I was actually referring to though wasn't your analysis.

The thing that just makes me shake my head (and I see this on other boards from right wing people too so I'm not picking on my sisters here) - is how easily people make pretty ...unusual...assumptions and state them as if obvious. It shows up on blogs and stuff and gets repeated and noised about by those who share the same political position without much critical thinking.

I'd give examples but that would be instigating against particular posters and I don't want that kind of tension.

I just wish people could say, of whatever politician - "I don't like their views and I don't want them to have power" instead of calling them "idiots" or "embarrassments" or whatever.

Maybe I'm living in a dream world on that though.

---

Post Merge: July 04, 2009, 12:42:44 PM

---

Quote from: heatherrose on July 04, 2009, 12:19:24 PM

Welcome to my corner of the "Community"

~Heather pats the seat beside her's~

You can come and sit beside me, if you like.

;D

*Gets comfy

Good company makes up for small numbers
;D

there is no logical reason why a person would NOT "cash in" on that popularity with a book deal and high paid speeches and the like. No reason, short of quitting politics altogether, why you would not build up a reserve of political IOUs (like Guliani did for the 4 years previous to 2008) by stumping around the country for 2010 candidates.

Bopth Laura and Tekla make good points. I'm split 50/50. It's either a. LARGE scandal, as in the Feds are moving in. Or b. shes positioning herself to collect IOU's by way of the 2010 (mid-term) election cycle.

If it's the latter than the old Southwest's  ad tagline comes to mind, she's "now free to move about the country."

Running for Prez from either Alaska or Hawaii is just a logistical nightmare. Palin could fly around the US and headline funraisers/rallies for Gov, Senate, and House candidates.

The aspect that points to scandal, or at least oddball, is her resigning. Why resign? She could have announced on Monday the 6th that she wouldn't seek re-election. Serve out her term and be able to help out other candidates. Or have waited to resign until near the Alaskan primary date. That would have added legititamcy to the Lt. Gov campaign.

Or, why didn't she re-sign and announce her candidacy for the GOP nom. for Murkowskis Senate seat. That too would put her in a position to stump for fellow GOP candidates.

BTW for the Palin detractors. Ditch the anti-small state bias. VP Biden, the man a heartbeat from the Presidency, is from Delaware. I used to live there. Its a very samll state in both size and population. Keep in mind Howard Dean, the former Gov from Vermont, made a strong run in 2004. Sen. Daschle was the Sen. Majority Leader, he was from North or South Dakota. I could add to this list. But enough said. Either that or start a drive to push out VP Biden.

For now though one thing is certain. From both the left and right camps.
Palin Derangement Syndrome will continue.

Maybe 22 hours of sunlight fried her brain.

Lisa, that could be. But given that you live in MS and I live in FL. I can only begin to think what others thoughts are regarding the long hot summers on our brains.

Look, as a large "D" member of the Democratic Party, a real life advocate and worker for trade union membership and workers rights believe me, there is no person I'd rather see be the Republican nominee than Sara Palin, unless it would be Michelle Bachman.

I guess I just have to quote my favorite comedian, Lewis Black, and ask "What the F*** were you thinking!?"  (WTFWYT!?)

It's kinda like that WTFWYT!? moment from the death of Michael Jackson.  Remember how within hours - hours I tell 'ya - members of his family pulled up not one, but two trucks to the house to get stuff out?  Sure you do.  And who could blame them, what with all the money he owed and stuff, they had to get their hands on it first.  But, to take all the furniture and stuff, AND LEAVE ALL THE DRUGS?  WTFWYT!?  Had it been me, I would have made sure - most likely by doing it myself - that that house didn't have as much as an aspirin in it. Much less a few garbage bags full of the stuff.

So, accused of being a political lightweight with no real experience, she quits half-way though her first term of her first real elected office so she could position herself for running for POTUS.  WTFWYT!?

I mean, there is something of the hysterical about the 'Pubs talking about what an awesome speaker she is, given that last go round.  She sounded - as others have pointed out - rambling, disjointed and more than a bit off center.  I've watched and listened to her when she has been on her game, and this was not that moment.  She sounds rushed, under pressure and the speech as a whole is incoherent. And the final quote was not just wrong, it was 180 degrees off base as it was delivered more or less to MacArthur, NOT by him.

If it was to cash in (remember she's not 'selling out' she is 'buying in') then more power to her, but why not just come out and say it?  "I've decided its in the best interest of my family to give up my low paying job in Alaska and make millions elsewhere."  Hell, I'd even applaud that and it would raise my estimation for both her intelligence and honesty.  But old 'plain speaking Sara' was so vague about her reasons and her plans you would have thought that it was Bob Dylan answering a personal question in an interview.*

The timing, the method and the manner all suggest something that when it's happened in the past, tends to turn out very badly. That's just the odds.  When a politician says "I'm doing this for my family" what they really mean tends to wind up being "so they don't have to visit me in jail."

For sure, her supporters deserved something better than this, and to make a hunting analogy (which I'm sure she'd love) she just gave her detractors a hella lot of ammo with which to attack her.

It's the Mafia Don deal, if you pile up enough charges, sooner or later you're going to get evidence of one crime.  So, When elected officials have to spend so much time and money fighting allegations of ethical misconduct, sooner or later, one of them sticks.  And nothing leaves a trail quite like money does.

And, to be sure, because I am.  Those people in D.C. now - the Obama people -- they play hardball, they play for keeps, they understand this is about running an Empire (a tottering one albeit) and not a beauty contest, and having control over the entire law enforcement of the federal government I would be shocked to find out that they didn't use it like the big city political types they all are.  They don't have to invent it, just use it.  And the Feds have been all over Alaska for years now, they already took out a sitting Senator, I'm sure that in a very small pot, that slime gets to everyone.  And for those who have not been following Alaska politics, the feds indited and convinced a lot of people up there BEFORE Obama took over.

----------

And the comparison with Biden and Dean is kinda unique, yes they come from small states, but those states are in the heart of the largest population center in the U.S. - and remember, both of them DID NOT win the nomination.  Moreover, the VP job (offer not valid with Dick Cheney) is not much.  It's only an issue, when you have someone like McCain, who is not in the best of health, where his health was an issue, and where there was a far greater than average chance that she could have wound up in the Oval Office.

like Guliani did for the 4 years previous to 2008
Also suffers as comparison, as he didn't win either, matter of fact, wasn't he pretty much the first guy out?

-----------------

*In what is pretty much one of gold standard for vague answers, Bob in his Playboy interview, when asked what his song were about replied:
DYLAN: . . . I do know what my songs are about.
PLAYBOY: And what's that?
DYLAN: Oh, some are about four minutes; some are about five, and some, believe it or not, are about eleven or twelve.
PLAYBOY: Can't you be a bit more informative?
DYLAN: Nope.

Honorable mention to this, John Lennon replying to the question 'How did you find America?" answered, "Turned left at Greenland."

And the comparison with Biden and Dean is kinda unique, yes they come from small states, but those states are in the heart of the largest population center in the U.S. - and remember, both of them DID NOT win the nomination.  Moreover, the VP job (offer not valid with Dick Cheney) is not much.  It's only an issue, when you have someone like McCain, who is not in the best of health, where his health was an issue, and where there was a far greater than average chance that she could have wound up in the Oval Office.

I'll clarify my point a bit here. Dosent it seem in the US that we get blinded by short-term results? Be it business or politics? In politics the Dems might be able to put the kabash on Palin over the small state issue. But what happens in 2016, providing Obama wins '12, when a Dem emerges from say the Dakotas or Montana for instance.

like Guliani did for the 4 years previous to 2008
Also suffers as comparison, as he didn't win either, matter of fact, wasn't he pretty much the first guy out?

On a personal note, I voted for "Rudy" in the FL primary.

Interestingly enough the Dems seem to like the small state people - Clinton from Arkansas, Carter from Georgia, while the R's have not been able to win (not counting Ike, who could have been running against Jesus and still won) since the 1920s without someone from either California or Texas. (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush)  You need a real base if your going to win as a minority party. 

Leadership positions in the House and the Senate have more to do with internal power within those bodies than power on a national scale.

QuoteThe aspect that points to scandal, or at least oddball, is her resigning. Why resign? She could have announced on Monday the 6th that she wouldn't seek re-election. Serve out her term and be able to help out other candidates. Or have waited to resign until near the Alaskan primary date. That would have added legititamcy to the Lt. Gov campaign.

In her statement, she mad  the point that the conventional political tactic was to do just that. Stay in office doing a half-assed job and jetting about the country on the states payroll serving the person's own interest and said she wouldn't be one to milk that role.

Plus, from the statement, she seems to be thinking that the drumbeat of opposition trying desperately to find some way to hang her was also a drain both on the state's funds and the family's personal finances. i doubt that will stop happening but at least it seems to be some part of her thinking.

Which poses the question - so many on the left keep saying that nothing would be better for Democrats than a palin nomination yet at the same time the left seems hell bent on destroying her far above and beyond any other Republican in the country.

IF she's a gift to Dems because she's such a joke, why do they hate her so?

Quote
Or, why didn't she re-sign and announce her candidacy for the GOP nom. for Murkowskis Senate seat. That too would put her in a position to stump for fellow GOP candidates.

Reportedly there was a comment on Twitter that basically said "more news to come, stay tuned" so there may be another chapter soon.

Quote
BTW for the Palin detractors. Ditch the anti-small state bias. VP Biden, the man a heartbeat from the Presidency, is from Delaware. I used to live there. Its a very samll state in both size and population. Keep in mind Howard Dean, the former Gov from Vermont, made a strong run in 2004. Sen. Daschle was the Sen. Majority Leader, he was from North or South Dakota. I could add to this list

No greater example than Clinton - Arkansas. Not just because it's a low-key rural state but because the governor of Arkansas is constitutionally a very weak executive.

---

Post Merge: July 04, 2009, 04:13:37 PM

---

Quote from: michellesofl on July 04, 2009, 02:49:00 PM
Lisa, that could be. But given that you live in MS and I live in FL. I can only begin to think what others thoughts are regarding the long hot summers on our brains.

Lisa is a fellow MS girl?

Cool!

That makes three of us I know about here...

Reportedly there was a comment on Twitter that basically said "more news to come, stay tuned" so there may be another chapter soon.

If Palin is thinking a Pres run in 2012, doing so as a sitting Sen would put her in a good position. I point back to the logistical nightmare that a run from Alaska or Hawaii would entail. Its a four to five flight just to reach Seattle or LAX from those states.

I know its cold in Alaska, but if you quit the Gov job 1/2 through how are you going to get elected to the Senate, particularly of the people think you're only doing it to get to be President in two more years?  That all but impossible to do in states where people are used to that.

No, she committed political suicide, the only question is why.

Oh poor Sara.  Oh she is getting savaged in the press.  Poor girl.  Never happened to a Liberal Democrat would it?  Not to Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, or John Kerry did it?   (And to be fair, Gore, Dukakis and Kerry, much like Sara, set themselves up for it.) 

All she had to do (and just about everyone, right, left and center said it) was to go back to Alaska, do a good job at being Gov, study policy, get good advisers and come back as a New Sara in 2 years.  There is a special level of obscurity reserved for the VP on a losing ticket and she could have benefited from that. Don't believe me?  Real quick, who ran with Dukakis?  See, I'm right. (Lloyd Bensten, BTW - and yes, I had to look it up).  But is was her - and her very vocal fan club - who worked to keep her in the spotlight.  Which was odd, considering the circular firing squad they've been keeping up since November, laying low and waiting till the shooting stops is the only logical thing to do.

And its not just the Obama crowd that is playing hardball for political keeps right now.  It was a fellow 'Pub that brought out all the stuff on Stanford for the press to follow up on.  Those people dumping on Sara in Vanity Fair, they are all Republican political operatives.  It's not the Dems that are shouting RINO all over the place trying to get all the McCain and Romney supporters out of the party right now.  So it's not some 'liberal media' deal at all.

And the reason I want her to run is because I think she defeats herself, making the election a walk.  Same reason that when the Dems nominated Kerry and Dukakis, Republicans all over the United States opened the top shelf champagne.  Happy days were here again for them indeed.

I think that, not just because I oppose her political viewpoints and ideology (and I do, I do), but because I look at what she says, who she appeals to, and how she comes across and think that she will only appeal to a very narrow part (but important part) of the Republican Party and will - if she hasn't already with all these shenanigans - alienate everyone else.  She has no crossover vote at all.  (Remember, no Reagan Democrats, no Reagan victory).  She would get fewer Democratic votes than Dick Cheney I bet - she's just that far off base - and at least you could vote for Cheney knowing 'he gets things done and the trains run on time' and all that.  And we know that not even with three, four, five or whatever heart attacks he never quit.

Compare her with Reagan?  You're kidding me.  He was a master of public speaking that made everyone feel good, yet said nothing he could be tied down on.  Who could oppose 'morning in America' - everybody likes morning and America, so it was a sure fire winner.  Reagan also served two - rather difficult at that - terms as Governor at a time when the State of California did about as good as its ever going to do.  And quit?  The Gipper?  The more criticism - and his kids came in for a fair share too - he got, the more determined he got.

You can talk all you want about 'no politics as usual' but as far as I can see the system works more or less like it always did.  So any 'outside the box' thinking is just one more road to failure.  Obama was nothing new (except he was black) but his campaign was not some bold departure, but rather, it was winning by the book.  There is no other road to be President other than win the nomination in such a way that some people of the other party might vote for you when its all said and done.  And, given current events, there is no way that the next nomination cycle for the Republican Party - much like the Democrats were in the late 70s and early 80s - is going to resemble throwing chum to a bunch of very hungry sharks, and all that is going to be internal.  Liberals and left wing types will have nothing to do with - other than open the top shelf champagne and sing happy days are here again - causing or making.

I knew about Bentsen - without looking it up. i also can name a couple of other Alasaka governors (though I doubt I'm spelling Murkowski right) - Frank Murkoswski and Tony Knowles

:D

Quote
And the reason I want her to run is because I think she defeats herself, making the election a walk.  Same reason that when the Dems nominated Kerry and Dukakis, Republicans all over the United States opened the top shelf champagne.  Happy days were here again for them indeed.

Exactly true. but there's where the contrast comes in. the Republicans who knew Kerry wold be an easy mark didn't pull out all the stops to try to kill Kerry's chances of getting the nomination.

As much as i hate to keep making the analogy, because it implies equal ability - the Palin Derangement has a lot more in common with the way that both Democrats AND Rockefeller Republicans used to loath Reagan and do everything they could to discredit him before (and often even after) 1980.

QuoteSo any 'outside the box' thinking is just one more road to failure.

Quite likely. I can't make a definitive comment until I see what her immediate next step is. But I DO see an incredible amount of arrogant "She's dead, I KNOW she's dead" sort of commentary from the left. Politics isn't THAT predictable.

I also pretty strongly disagree with the notion that she has NO crossover appeal either, but that ultimately comes down to opinions.

But I'm reminded of the New York Socialite who was stunned that Nixon won in '68 because "none of the people I know voted for him"

A lot of times ones political views are reflective of the people they associate with. I can't presume to guess how many Democrats in NY or RI or Maine or Oregon would crossover and vote for her....but I can tell you for a certain fact that if the 2008 election had been Obama v. Palin that a MASSIVE amount of rural Democrats across the south and in places like Nebraska and Indiana would have crossed the aisle to vote for her. Especially if she had been a candidate for 2 years like he was and she'd had a chance to define herself instead of being viewed through two months of "full court press"

Speaking of which - a tangent-


A big part of why she was perceived as a lightweight is that she was thrown into a national campaign in which she had not been at all involved or prepared for with 2 months to go. Do you think Obama STARTED considering his run for president having already thoroughly studied all the national issues and prepared positions he could intellectually defend? No. He knew when he decided to run he needed to be prepared and he took the time to get prepared, and then had almost two years to refine and perfect how he presented those views. that's something Palin didn't have AT ALL.
If Obama had yanked Sebelius out of Kansas for his running mate she'd have had the same issues. (albeit his camp would probably have prepped her a lot better than McCain's people did Palin but still, it's a "cold start")

And that's to say nothing of both McCain and Biden having spent decades handling those issues.

OF COURSE you throw Palin into that and she's going to come off as unprepared by contrast.

So why pick someone unprepared? 

And I don't think that even cramming with the best minds she could buy, Sara would ever be as involved or prepared as Obama was before he even thought about starting.  Huge difference between Columbia and Harvard Law and six years at five various colleges no one has ever head of getting a journalism degree.  No comparison.  But I don't think that effects her supporters, in fact, they like that about her.  But outside of her base, I don't see her winning votes beyond that.  Matter of fact I think a lot of the things that her base (and I read them all the time over at FreeRepublic) really likes about her that do not turn negative when taken outside of that base.

See, the worst part of it is, for the 'Pubs, (I kind of like it) is that I know that General George Patton was right (about a lot of stuff) on when he said America loves a winner. America will not tolerate a loser.  And a huge part of being a loser is not finishing what you start.  That is part of the resignation deal, and also part of the five colleges in six years deal.  It gives the impression (and national political stuff is largely an impression deal) of being flaky.

I think that a key difference between Sebelius and Palin is that perhaps (and Sebelius was not picked, most likely for that very reason) Sebelius might have listened to those who were there to help her.  Perhaps the harshest thing in the Vanity Fair article is the constant drumbeat of her not listening to the advice of those who actually knew something about running a national election.

And this step shows all the handmarks of that kind of non-critical thinking.  Sloppy, poorly executed, no real reasons given, and no tradition followed.

Not that it would have mattered.  The reason that Obama and Clinton fought tooth and nail for that nomination was that whoever got it was going to win the Presidency almost no matter what.  Bush didn't just mess up, he messed up so bad that no Republican was going to win. (That and there was/is a sea level change in American culture - and politics is a reflection of culture always - going on, and they were on the side of the past, not the future.  That always makes it an uphill fight.)

Quote
So why pick someone unprepared? 

A valid point of view if you are willing to exclude a huge part of the talent base.

the only one's prepared would be members of Congress, or defeated candidates for the nomination. (and a lot of members of Congress probably wouldn't be but it's there job to be so it's on them)

Quote
And I don't think that even cramming with the best minds she could buy, Sara would ever be as involved or prepared as Obama was before he even thought about starting.  Huge difference between Columbia and Harvard Law and six years at five various colleges no one has ever head of getting a journalism degree.  No comparison.

Meh. that's just elitism as far as I'm concerned, with all due respect. I'm not someone who's  swept away by "Ivy League credentials"

I can see your further argument about "flakyness" - that's a valid point. But I refuse to limit the presidency to folks with Ivy league educations.


On the other hand...

Quote
The reason that Obama and Clinton fought tooth and nail for that nomination was that whoever got it was going to win the Presidency almost no matter what.  Bush didn't just mess up, he messed up so bad that no Republican was going to win.

there's no denying THAT.

I agree with Tekla that something big is coming Palin's way. It most likely is a handful of possibly serious legal problems.

Or, there is something personal that is big with her. Maybe a family illness or something.

I have no opinion of Palin other than she really is not qualified to run the country, however, that opinion is meaningless as Bush was also not qualified.

    The Levi Johnston kid is putting out a book about the 'secrets' of the Palin family. It may be nothing, just that she refused to serve her kids salt at dinner, but what if it involves a lizard and a can of creamed corn?  I guess that's another possible reason to hide out.
    I don't really believe the kid has anything meaningful to say about the family, though.

Oh good, I get to make one of my favorite lectures. 

In the crew room of one of the clubs I work at (the extremely famous and legendary one) someone wrote on the wall: You don't get trained here, you get here trained.  Most shows we use five people, between us, we have about 150 years of experience doing live music shows.  There is not a single person that you can't tell to do something that they can't do - that they haven't done thousands of times. I work at (and have worked at) a lot of places that were not like that, that did not have that level of training and experience, and it makes a huge difference.  Why should I expect less out of people who want to be President of the United States - easily, one of the most powerful jobs in the world - then I do out of stagehands?

Because, what that experience has taught me (among other things) is that:
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.

So a little real world experience ain't a bad deal, in reality.

As for the Ivy League (and bunch of other places too besides the seven brothers and the seven sisters) education.  OK, its not a deal maker, or breaker for me.  But, it does say something.  I've been to both public and private colleges, taught at HUGE public universities, private colleges and Community Colleges (as well as AP high school classes) and there is a difference.  The best courses I ever taught were the ROTC classes in military history.  Because . . .  I had the best students in them.  Smart, dedicated, motivated - I could not pitch anything over their heads, because there was very little that was over their heads.  The better - more prepared, more well studied - the students were, the better I could be. And the people I know who went to major schools, Stanford, Harvard (the Stanford of the East), Auburn, Georgetown, Notre Dame and all that are - if not the smartest people I know - the best at applying everything they can summon to getting the job done. 

Granted even a crappy student can get a third rate education at Yale, we've just lived though eight years of that.  But a really good student is going to be challenged at a major uni far more than they would be at the local community college, bet on it. Auburn on the whole has better students and better professors than Itta Bena does. (Even though my favorite wide receiver in the history of football came from Itta Bena).  Or maybe that is the point.  Really great schools have crappy sports - Catholic Universities excepted - and some of the best, like University of Chicago, don't even have a sports program at all, they do Nobel Laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners instead.  And I'm no doubt wrong about Itta Bena, I'm sure the predominantly African-American student population there worked very hard to be there, and even harder to get out - I should have said, Yazoo Community College.

And, (and this is very key) five colleges in six years (aside from showing that one can't really commit and/or finish anything) also robs the student of any real chance at education they might have had.  My reward for being picked on by the other students in grade and high school was to be picked on by the professors in college. They - like I did when I taught - sought out the best students, and made them do more, work harder, learn more and really work to expand themselves.  When I taught students would get some sort of general writing assignment.  The ones I really liked, I gave special topics to.  Ones that were harder, more difficult, and often from the opposite perspective they were comfortable with.  I made them reach, like my best professors did to me. I'm sure Obama got that treatment all the way though, I'm just as sure Palin never did.

If you think it does not make a difference, then you don't know what it is you're talking about.

QuoteAs for the Ivy League (and bunch of other places too besides the seven brothers and the seven sisters) education.

You might like "Lost in the Meritocracy"

QuoteI'm sure Obama got that treatment all the way though, I'm just as sure Palin never did.

Seems likely.

I'll be glad when he starts applying that training by making some actual smart decisions.

I'm just saying he got that deal, that kind of treatment, by being in one college long enough for his professors to get to know him.  I'm sure there were professors who he took 3, 4, 5 classes from.  That's hard to do when you are skipping around.