Jump to content
Mr.Topicality

Palin to step down as governor of Alaska

Recommended Posts

its pretty simple: when everyone has the same opportunities, a society in which outcomes are based on merit is possible.

 

But in order to achieve such a society, outcomes not based on merit are requried. and must continue to happen to ensure that the next generation has an equal shot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in order to achieve such a society, outcomes not based on merit are requried. and must continue to happen to ensure that the next generation has an equal shot.

 

sure. thats where the disagreement is. but the great hulk's joke implied that liberals have no interest in meritocracy and it was boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the past election, I developed a pretty decent impersonation of Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin (the exaggerated accent, etc.). If Palin goes national again, I have lots of party entertainment options!

 

I was watching one of the talking heads news programs this morning (don't remember which), and the commentator speculated that Palin might be taking time to travel -- both around the country and around the world. She may be taking this opportunity to educate herself about various issues so she doesn't come across so stupid in the future. Also, such travel would allow her to build political capital, both domestically and internationally. If foreign leaders can take her seriously, that may improve her chances of political office here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If foreign leaders can take her seriously, that may improve her chances of political office here.

Maybe, but consider which party she's a member of...

 

Most of the people who voted for her last time (not necessarily the same group that voted for McCain) would be turned off by foreign endorsements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, but consider which party she's a member of...

 

Most of the people who voted for her last time (not necessarily the same group that voted for McCain) would be turned off by foreign endorsements.

 

Are those people going to vote for Obama? They're probably not smart enough to vote libertarian (libertarians tend to not be afraid of leaders with brains). Developing strong foreign credibility might hurt her with the nascar dad crowd during the primary, but it will help her in a general election. I know a few people who didn't vote McCain simply for fear he'd die; and her idiocy on foreign affairs was a key element in those decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During the past election, I developed a pretty decent impersonation of Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin

 

AHA!

 

So you are hot!

 

And david i dont think that was micahs point. I think he was laughing at the absurdity of Leftists using non merit outcomes to create a meritocracy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe Palin just has a "friend" that she wants to visit in Argentina more...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Most of the people who voted for her last time (not necessarily the same group that voted for McCain) would be turned off by foreign endorsements.

 

Obviously, she has to broaden her appeal. There wasn't enough support for her that came "naturally."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, Palin is not stupid. I've talked to people that have done work with her on environmental issues - fisheries and game issues - and they all have reported that she's quite sharp when you get her in person and talking on policy issues which she understands. I'm not sure why that person doesn't show up when it's time for interviews. I think she's done with politics, and won't be running in 2012 (she'd be insane to run for President given what's been done to her in the media, and what she's done to bring about that treatment) however..this is America, and you can't count anyone out - I've seen reports lately that speculate that John Edwards is thinking about a comeback.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly, Palin is not stupid. I've talked to people that have done work with her on environmental issues - fisheries and game issues - and they all have reported that she's quite sharp when you get her in person and talking on policy issues which she understands. I'm not sure why that person doesn't show up when it's time for interviews. I think she's done with politics, and won't be running in 2012 (she'd be insane to run for President given what's been done to her in the media, and what she's done to bring about that treatment) however..this is America, and you can't count anyone out - I've seen reports lately that speculate that John Edwards is thinking about a comeback.

 

maybe she'll pull a gringrich and be out of work for a decade will still making a lot of noise. then people will always put her on every vp short list and on the sunday morning shows.

 

its her ladder up the backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she uses her "free time" to develop FoPo credentials, hit the speakers' circuit, get a talk show, etc., I don't know that she can win the nomination. Heck, there are some who are making convincing arguments that she really just wants out (of electoral politics, not necessarily the spotlight if it's on her own terms).

 

If she runs, I think it could be a fascinating GOP primary.

 

Romney vs. Palin vs. Huckabee vs. Pawlenty vs. Gary Johnson

 

If she doesn't run, don't discount the possibility of Jindal throwing his hat in the ring. It's sad that Sanford destroyed himself, he would've been an interesting candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see her getting the nomination if Obama has a really good first term and it seems obvious that whoever the GOP throws up will lose badly, like Mondale/Dukakis/Dole badly. Then Republicans might nominate her just to get her out of the way (and be the first major party to put a woman at the front of the ticket). But I don't know whether she'd run in such a situation.

 

Edit:

During the past election, I developed a pretty decent impersonation of Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin (the exaggerated accent, etc.). If Palin goes national again, I have lots of party entertainment options!

 

I believe a Rule 32 challenge is proper here...

(Link NSFW)

Edited by Fox On Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. She strikes me as being a kinda quasi-fascist airhead, but I still think she's hot.

Explain to me how she fits the definition of being 'quasi-fascist' at all. If you're going to throw out terms like that, at least provide some justification for them.

 

As to her being an airhead, Brian Dunning put it pretty well in a recent podcast:

 

"Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin, but first with the understanding that I don't know any more about her than you do; I've never met her either; and I didn't vote for her. Stupid people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates. If she'd exhibited stupidity on the Wasilla city council, they probably wouldn't have elected her mayor. If she'd exhibited stupidity as mayor, they probably wouldn't have elected her for a second term. Her appointment to the Oil and Gas Committee by the governor was probably not because she'd behaved stupidly. Finally, stupidity probably does not characterize most successful bids to run for governor of one of the United States. Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical point-by-point support of the Republican platform? Yes. Is she undereducated for her position? Possibly, her bachelor's degree is in journalism. It's arguable that she's demonstrated a clear disdain for, and illiteracy in, science. She gives every indication that her religious beliefs and her party guidance determine her priorities. But welcome to reality: That's the way a lot of people work, including a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle. If you call yourself a critical thinker, ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault. Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that's "stupid", and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions. It may be that you simply disagree with her convictions, and you probably have very good reasons for doing so. But if that's the case, don't just say "Sarah Palin is stupid". That's kindergarten talk, and it makes you look bad, not her. Understand why she takes the position she does, then reveal the faults in that position.

My point today has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, or with anyone else. It has to do with a lack of critical thinking among many people who consider themselves skeptics."

 

They're setting her up to run as a populist from the right in 2012. Obama's success, and Ron Paul's assault on the GOP, have convinced the far-right they need to tell new lies to regain power. That's how I see this speech - a set up for her to be some kind of ethical crusader to end politics as usual, while backing policies which ensure big business loses no power.

 

Lololololol! Compared to the policies of Obama which have done absolutely nothing for small businesses, but which instead include bailing out nothing but big businesses, you honestly think Palin's policies would favor big business MORE?

 

 

 

i choose to laugh (and also cringe) at the idea that we might have had a vice president (or president) that wasnt aware Africa is a continent
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html

 

Do your research before just parroting things you've heard in the media please.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo a lot of what Steve Sieb just said, and thanks to him for pointing out the urban legend/wild rumor about Palin and Africa. I wouldn't vote for the woman for a national leadership position if you offered me a fortune, but she shouldn't be branded with false accusations.

 

The instance that made me shudder with horror about Palin came a few weeks before the election; Palin was being asked (relatively informal venue) about what she would do as VP, and her answer clearly indicated that she thought she would be in the US Senate on a daily basis, running its sessions and guiding its agenda. I would cut her some slack had she given that answer just before or even just after the GOP convention; I mean, how many people really know what the VP does. But this took place only a few weeks prior to the November election. For someone to aspire to a national office...and continually assert that they are more qualified for that position that any of the opposition...without having the vaguest notion as to what that position does.....that is someone I could never support, and who I find dangerous in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lololololol! Compared to the policies of Obama which have done absolutely nothing for small businesses, but which instead include bailing out nothing but big businesses, you honestly think Palin's policies would favor big business MORE?

Ahem...Learn to read. I didn't say anything about President Obama favoring small (or not favoring big) businesses. In point of fact, I was pointing out how the American people are easily fooled by false claims of populism coming from major party candidates, a phemomenon for which Barack Obama is the poster child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, stupidity probably does not characterize most successful bids to run for governor of one of the United States. Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical point-by-point support of the Republican platform? Yes. Is she undereducated for her position? Possibly, her bachelor's degree is in journalism. It's arguable that she's demonstrated a clear disdain for, and illiteracy in, science. She gives every indication that her religious beliefs and her party guidance determine her priorities. But welcome to reality: That's the way a lot of people work, including a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle. If you call yourself a critical thinker, ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault. Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that's "stupid", and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions.

 

That's one hell of a qualifier. If you believe that evolution is false because an old book of fairy tales has a different story about abiogenesis; if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, even though I'm holding a fossil; if you believe in witches; if you believe in witch doctors; if you believe prayer is a substitute for medicine; if you believe prayer is a substitute for sex ed; if you believe tax cuts will solve any problem; if you speak in tongues because you think god is speaking through you; if you had to go to five shit universities to eek out with a ba in journalism; you are probably stupid.

 

Why should religious and political convictions, the main source of her stupidity, be excluded from the discussion?

 

Compared to the policies of Obama which have done absolutely nothing for small businesses, but which instead include bailing out nothing but big businesses, you honestly think Palin's policies would favor big business MORE?

 

absolutely. she's an oil troll.

 

depending on what happens with health care, obama might just save small business in america.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am pretty sure she is stupid. See:

 

SEEKING PROTECTION FROM THE 'DEPARTMENT OF LAW'.... Sarah Palin, after avoiding public attention for a few days, spoke to quite a few news outlets today, and stuck to the line that she felt compelled to quit because the series of ethics allegations against her -- all of which, she said, lack merit -- were too big a burden and distraction.

It prompted ABC News' Kate Snow to ask a reasonable question.

[W]hen I asked Palin if she ever decided to pursue national office again, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, wouldn't she encounter the same political blood sport? Can such ugliness ever be avoided?

Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

It's tempting to think Palin may have been referring to the Justice Department, but it's not "in the White House," and it doesn't have the authority to "throw out" charges against the president. Maybe she's thinking of the White House Counsel's Office, but again, it has the ability to defend against allegations, not "look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."

Indeed, the very assumption that a president is somehow shielded or protected against allegations is itself misguided.

Palin continues to be hopelessly confused about the basics of government. Maybe now that she'll have some free time on her hands, she can brush up on Civics 101.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my bad using the Africa thing. i read that eisenstadt thing a long time ago and forgot. i should have just kept it simple and used this to demonstrate her stupidity. it has the added benefit of having nothing to do with her "religious or political convictions" so it counts, right?

 

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.I believe a Rule 32 challenge is proper here...

(Link NSFW)

 

Sorry - no pictures. Voice only. Comes from my training as an interp coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's entirely possible that Sarah Palin is simply taking the course of action that will allow her to make as much money from her status & notariety as possible. Conservative political groups, oil industry organizations and the like will pay her big bucks for the insipid speeches she makes. If she is not holding office, she is free to make as much money from those as she likes. She may indeed run for President in 2012; she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning and that doesn't matter. She's been watching Newt Gingrich milk the talk show circuit for the past decade and get rich doing it. Newt also periodically stokes the fires about a run for the White House but again he doesn't have to win the election to "win" financially. I think Palin may be on the same career path,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I am pretty sure she is stupid.

 

I've been trying to think about what she meant. The President does have Presidential immunity against certain kinds of suit. I'm not too familiar with Alaska's statute, which appears to make ethics claims against the governor particularly easy to file. It may be that those kinds of complaints would be barred by Presidential immunity. But she sure didn't explain it that way, and I don't think she has any idea how the system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one hell of a qualifier. If you believe that evolution is false because an old book of fairy tales has a different story about abiogenesis; if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, even though I'm holding a fossil; if you believe in witches; if you believe in witch doctors; if you believe prayer is a substitute for medicine; if you believe prayer is a substitute for sex ed; if you believe tax cuts will solve any problem; if you speak in tongues because you think god is speaking through you; if you had to go to five shit universities to eek out with a ba in journalism; you are probably stupid.

 

You know, it really kills your argument when about 80% of what you posted (the parts I've bolded) isn't true of Palin. The whole point of the podcast that I linked in my first post was to point out that simply because you have ideological differences with Palin, it doesn't make her stupid. Had you taken the time to read the entire transcript of Dunning's podcast (I'm assuming you didn't based on your post), you would understand the point I'm trying to make. As you appear unable to click the link, however, I'll post more of it here:

 

"For example, I heard some skeptics the other day talking about Bill Maher, saying "I didn't realize he was as crazy as he is." (Bill Maher is an outspoken critic of science based medicine. He's endorsed AIDS denialism, Big Pharma conspiracies, anti-vaccination, and natural medicine.) Now, granted Bill Maher is wrong about a lot of things, but he's not on the fringe. A lot of people believe that stuff. Clearly it's important that they be educated, because widespread beliefs like this would represent a serious national health crisis. If you dismiss those beliefs as craziness, you're saying there's nothing to them, they're meaningless. Instead, acknowledge that there are compelling cultural influences that have led Bill Maher and others to believe those things. Bill Maher is just one of many victims of these influences, and it's because he has the average person's ability to understand and interpret the information he's been exposed to, not because he's crazy.

In the same way, you could say Sarah Palin is simply responding to cultural and political influences. People need cheap energy, so she's a proponent of drilling the oil in her state. People want government to eliminate wasteful spending, so she bashes fruit fly research, the significance of which has never been made clear to her or to the public. The United States is a strongly Christian nation, and many people support teaching creationism in schools, and oppose stem cell research. Palin isn't being stupid by embracing these concepts, she's responding to the same influences everyone else is."

 

 

Does it mean that her views are right? Not necessarily, but what is for sure is that those views in and of themselves don't make her stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

absolutely. she's an oil troll.
Ok, even if her policies benefit oil companies, you have yet to establish why that's a bad thing.

 

depending on what happens with health care, obama might just save small business in america.
Care to explain how exactly?

 

 

 

Actually, I am pretty sure she is stupid. See:

 

SEEKING PROTECTION FROM THE 'DEPARTMENT OF LAW'.... Sarah Palin, after avoiding public attention for a few days, spoke to quite a few news outlets today, and stuck to the line that she felt compelled to quit because the series of ethics allegations against her -- all of which, she said, lack merit -- were too big a burden and distraction.

It prompted ABC News' Kate Snow to ask a reasonable question.

[W]hen I asked Palin if she ever decided to pursue national office again, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, wouldn't she encounter the same political blood sport? Can such ugliness ever be avoided?

Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

It's tempting to think Palin may have been referring to the Justice Department, but it's not "in the White House," and it doesn't have the authority to "throw out" charges against the president. Maybe she's thinking of the White House Counsel's Office, but again, it has the ability to defend against allegations, not "look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."

Indeed, the very assumption that a president is somehow shielded or protected against allegations is itself misguided.

Palin continues to be hopelessly confused about the basics of government. Maybe now that she'll have some free time on her hands, she can brush up on Civics 101.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink

 

That's seriously all you've got? I know it's hard to grasp, but people do actually misspeak. In the cases of the ethics complaints filed against her (all of which, by the way, have been dropped or dismissed) the Alaska Department of Law has been the agency dealing with them on Palin's behalf. It's fairly obvious that Palin meant that in the White House there would be a similar agency to deal with anything like what she experienced with the ethics complaints. I don't consider this any different than when Obama mistakenly said he had visited 57 states, and don't see why anyone else should either.

 

 

 

 

my bad using the Africa thing. i read that eisenstadt thing a long time ago and forgot. i should have just kept it simple and used this to demonstrate her stupidity. it has the added benefit of having nothing to do with her "religious or political convictions" so it counts, right?

 

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

Er, link/source?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain to me how she fits the definition of being 'quasi-fascist' at all. If you're going to throw out terms like that, at least provide some justification for them.

 

 

Steve:

 

Please read the first post in this thread, and then read basic Constitutional law regarding the First Amendment.

 

I (and everyone else responding to this thread - including you) was asked what I thought about Governor Palin's announcement; in other words, I was asked for my opinion.

 

I do not have to"explain" and/or "justify" my opinion [either as to why I think Governor Palin is a "quasi-fascist," (a negative opinion) OR why I think she's "kinda hot" (a definitely positive opinion)].

 

Nor do you have to "explain" and/or "justify" your opinions about Governor Palin, and neither does anyone else. That's what the First Amendment is all about... especially with respect to public officials.

 

Your zeal is understandable, and I admire it. But, like so many people - right, left, and "moderate" (whatever that worthless weaselword means) - you need to learn the difference between a debateable issue of fact and an undebateable issue of opinion (or "taste," if you prefer).

 

And I have nothing further to say on this, because - IMHO - Governor Palin will soon move on to the obscurity she so richly deserves.

 

Besides, there are far more profound, momentous, and substantive political issues to debate: like whether or not Congressman King "crossed the line" [sic] when he dared to criticize the media coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. ;)

Edited by topspeaker70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think Palin has a clue about health care reform AND that widespread belief of natural living as a superior alternative to eating packaged foods and taking prescription blood pressure, cholesterol and neurological medications to counter the effects of a bad diet, amount to a national health crisis, I have some lovely bridges for sale. A national health crisis is when millions of people can't get medical care simply because they can't pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...