A winner never quits and… Okay, let’s try a different example…
(Sarah Palin)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: billclay via Our LOL Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous I’d answer your question | Be the worst president of the States Next »
» 270 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
shin0bi272 on Oh God MrsQ of Philadelphia on Spock Facepalm JustMe on The Eternal Question MrsQ of Philadelphia on Changes at Cheezburger Miss on Osombie Archer on How Far We Haven’t … Archer on Spock Facepalm ExGeeEye on Suburban Problems Blue on Keeping the Internet Hone… Blue on Keeping the Internet Hone… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
i meen boops
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Getting told there's no homework until next week.
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
HERE IT COMES!!!
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Great Escape
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Nom Distraction
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Camera Hoggin' G-Peeg
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Socially Awkward Gentlemen
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Slurm! It's Highly Addictive!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Curse You, Spam Mail!
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
THE JOKE'S ON HIM
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Tom Hiddleston Totally Looks Like Young Robert Englund
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Red Velvet and Pink Hot Chocolate
I’d love to see how this played out in her head.
My guess is that she saw it a little differently than everyone else did.
I’m sure that when it played out in her head, it involved lots and lots of ponies along with a rainbow or two.
What was that thing the Liberals complained about Bush in Iraq? That he wouldn’t Change.
Sarah did a pre-emptive Change.
excellent analogy – because foreign war and a political career are EXACTLY the same. admittedly both are misguided and lacked forethought in this case, but that doesn’t mean the same strategy should be applied.
idiot.
Which is why it was a joke.
Imagine somebody joking on a humor site! *is shocked and appalled*
It’s just gross and unsanitary, Diss! It has to STOP!
Well, really! Humor iz SERIOUS BIZZNUSS! *huffs off*
Your sarcasm would be much better if the picture was actually funny.
This news makes me sad, she really brought the lulz. From a foreigner’s perspective anyway.
Fear not – you can always catch up on her supporters trying to spin this. Look for Bill Kristol in particular – he’s an absolute riot (and an absolute lunatic, too).
I’ll keep an eye out.
Don’t worry, there’s still Joe Biden and Rahm & Nancy creepy pics.
Biden certainly delivers..
Yea I don’t understand how she thought this would give her a better chance at becoming the president in 2012. All this says to me is “I can’t finish what I start, I am an attention whore, gosh darnit!”
She thought resigning would look better then being forced out for ethics violations, also this way she can claim she didn’t do anything wrong and just say she was being “persecuted” by the evil liberal media and her supporters will be gullible enough to believe her. Which would probably not be the case if she stayed in office and continued to be scrutinized much longer.
What I want to know is why does she feel ‘persecuted’? Does anyone really talk about her anymore? I haven’t heard anything up until she resigned.
PS – Her daughter is still smokin’ hot. That is all.
Mitt Romney tried this technique–he wanted to avoid losing the reelection bid for Massachusetts governor. (Somehow he had thought that dissing the state of Mass while campaigning in the South wouldn’t hurt his re-election? idiot!)
Not running for re-election in MA didn’t help him beat out McCain in the primaries, even with his allegedly better conservative cred.
You do realize that she paid out of her own pocket to defend against every single bogus ethics complaint, which, the last time I new was at 14. Have you even read any of the complaints, it looks to me as if someone is trying very hard to dis-credit her.
yes its the evil librul media!!1! just as I said above it’s the only thing that could explain 14 ethics complaints… well either that or she’s unethical.
Have you read any of the complaints? (which mount to 18 on futhur research) And a majority of them were thrown out for being frivolous. Or did you miss that? And yes, I do believe it’s the left-wing media trying to throw mud on a potential threat to their liberal “news” reporting. That doesn’t make me a right-wing wacko, that makes me an informed American.
you may wanna read the story my name links to. Oh a “majority of them” were frivolous well that changes everything she only committed some of the ethics violations she was accused of well that’s perfectly alright then, my bad.
Also I love how people who buy into conspiracy theories always pass it off as though it’s everyone else who is deluded “believing bush planned 9/11 doesn’t make me wacko it makes me an informed American unlike you sheep.” “believing the C.I.A. listens to my thoughts threw my fillings does not make me a wacko it makes me an informed American”
FYI that’s how ridiculous you sound when you insist all the criticisms and complaints about palin are part of some vast media conspiracy.
A majority proved frivolous, meaning that they wern’t given the light of day in a courtroom (or however those things are resolved) The rest of the complaints weren’t proved.
And no, I don’t believe any of the conspiracy theories you cited (just to be clear) But look at the reporting that goes on in the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, ABC MSNBC etc.) the half that’s actually news is generally bias towards the left.
Alright so stating I was an informed American (in doing so implying others aren’t) may have been somewhat arrogant. I’m just trying to point out facts.
I could be wrong here but if they were thrown out for being frivolous and never made it to a courtroom, then what did it cost to defend herself against them?
Also, Palin? a threat? You’re kidding right?
Need a tampon?
And the difference between a right wing whacko and a uniformed merkin is???
Em wouldn’t it be unethical to defend against ethics violations using public funds?
Please remember I’m British, so it’s a reasonable question.
From a couple articles I read, she used her own funds. According to this news story: http://news.aol.com/article/sarah-palin-ethics-complaints/501303
She has a legal-debt of over $500,000.
Thanks for that. This one sprung out at me:-
“One complaint, in which the Alaska Personnel Board found no wrongdoing, concluded with the governor agreeing to pay the state $10,000 for trips taken by her children — money that is due Tuesday”
It’s very similar to a number of cases over here, some of which ended with funds being repaid, and others have been referred to the “Serious Fraud Office” (specialist Police unit, tasked with investigating fraud).
Such being the case, I’m wondering whether or not there’s actually something there, and this is a “duck and cover”.
I didn’t read the link, and I know you won’t have the answer to this, but… WTH?
“One complaint, in which the Alaska Personnel Board found no wrongdoing, concluded with the governor agreeing to pay the state $10,000 for trips taken by her children — money that is due Tuesday”
If there was “no wrongdoing” why does she have to pay any money back?? That makes no sense at all. If you get accused of a crime and are found not guilty, you don’t have to pay restitution.
Sounds to me – and again, disclaimer, I didn’t read the article – like someone said, “Look, nobody wants this to get ugly, so if you pay us back by Tuesday we’ll call it done and say nothing more about it.”
You can probably guess my opinion on “I’ve done nothing wrong, but I’m giving the money back”.
I mean, how far would I get with “I was stuck behind this tourist at 40mph for 10 miles, and was only doing 80 as a Vmax when overtaking”?
I’ll leave it to you to figure out why your example, in which you knowingly and consciously break a law you fully comprehend, is incorrect.
So it’s ok to break a law if I didn’t know about it? These people are actually paid to understand the law.
The law says that travel is covered “if the First Family supports an important state interest”. Unlike your trivial example, this is not an unambiguous rule. Since Palin truthfully declared all this travel, it’s not criminal for the official responsible for the interpretation of the law to disagree.
It was apparently sufficiently ambiguous for the money to be claimed, the claim authorised, and then for the authorisation to be overturned on re-examination.
All done according to state law. What, then, leads you to believe that there was wrongdoing involved?
You really believe this don’t you?
In these sorts of circumstances I would ask for the ruling first, and submit the claim second, rather than the other way about. So would most people who aren’t career politicians.
I’ll take that as a sign that you’re done pretending to be open-minded about this. Fair enough.
Let me just ask you one question: have you ever submitted an expense report to a large organization, public or private?
I’ll just sit here in the corner and pretend like I understood ?his? example, heh.
It actually makes perfect sense. You can break a rule for plenty of non-criminal reasons — the rule may have needed interpretation (this is quite common), or it may have been an above-board mistake, all declared correctly, caught in auditing, or even a retroactive rule. In those cases, you weren’t trying to defraud anyone, but you’re still wrong, so you need to pay the money back.
Understand?
That makes sense in a way, but it doesn’t seem applicable to this situation. (Although, again, this is all how things *seem to me* as someone who doesn’t know the details.)
If the outcome of the hearing/whatever was, “You have to pay back $10K,” then the $10K should not have been used in the first place, which means that the use of the $10K was, by definition, “wrongdoing.”
It might not have been *intentional*, I understand that much, but if you used money that you weren’t supposed to, that is wrongdoing nonetheless. It seems like there should be some other phrase than “no wrongdoing.” Because, as you said, “you weren’t trying to defraud anyone, but [you] still [did something] wrong.”
If that IS how they’re using the phrase, they should amend it, to “no intentional wrongdoing” or “no malicious wrongdoing” or something, because it’s misleading.
And if I were a person who, say, spent hours poring over the lawbooks and regulations before submitting my expense claim, and as a result when I got audited everything was 100% in order and correct, I would be PISSED at being given the exact same finding as someone who said, “I’m sure lap dances are an allowable expense – and if it turns out that they’re not, we can just pay it back later.”
It’s not misleading; “wrongdoing” in this context specifically implies criminal intent. They found an error, but no intent to defraud; therefore, there was a mistake, but no wrongdoing.
So you’re maintaining that the usual “I declare that these expenses were necessarily incurred in the execution of my duties” type clause on claim forms means “this is my claim”; pay it now and if subsequent audit decides that I’ve overclaimed, I can give some of the money back?
I’m sorry, but even if there is no legal fraud committed, there is still a distinct moral dubiety there.
Uh, yes, as I explained before. The law is NOT specified with absolute precision; it’s up to the duly authorized state officer to interpret and apply it.
See, financial areas of law are murky about this. While Dhoti has a point, so do you. The ‘First Family’ is allowed to travel, however you have to think about also the fact that her kids weren’t really necessary during the campaign. They didn’t have to go everywhere with her. But at the same time, I can see how since it went on for two years she would want them there in order to not create a void that often happens in political families.
There were certainly times when I thought that the kids shouldn’t be there or there was no need for them to be. But the laws need to either be more clear, or there, like you said, has to be a broader vocabulary when it comes to describing the unintentional mishandling.
I do have to admit, though, that as a credit to Palin her paying it back ever after they said ‘no wrongdoing’ is showing that she has a good amount of moral fiber in her.
I thought the complaints dealt with travel before her VP nomination — my understanding was that the RNC and the McCain campaign paid for all their campaign travel after that. (Like the complaint about the wardrobe the campaign bought her — it was that it violated FEC rules, not that it came from state funds.)
I guess I misunderstood. If they’re going with their mother just for the sake of it then I wouldn’t know how to think on it since I’m very close with my own. I still stand that the laws probably need to be tweaked here and there to not be quite so black and white and have people scratching their heads as they are now.
Alicia? Did you, a librul, just say that Sarah Palin has a good moral fiber? *pulls out citation book* I’m afraid I’m going to have to cite you for failure to be a blatant partisan, and take your Dirty Librul card, effective immediately.
haha, omg, whatever will I do without my card? Oo; good thing I never claimed to be Liberal though, otherwise I might miss that…
She may have morals that i don’t particularly agree with, but she seems to know the difference between just going ‘fu(k it’ and actually doing something good.
From the Anchorage Daily News, presumably gathered from state records (*** emphasis mine):
“The ***personnel board found no wrongdoing,*** but in a Feb. 23 settlement ***Palin agreed to reimburse the state*** about $10,000 for costs associated with 10 trips ***found to be of questionable state interest*** among 72 travel authorizations studied.”
“Found no wrongdoing” is about as clear of a determination as anybody can make.
“Found to be of questionable state interest” doesn’t imply that the trip costs weren’t in the state’s interest any more than it would imply that they were in the state’s interest. To the contrary, it makes the determination that the trip costs were officially in a gray area.
Once the determination of no wrongdoing was made, Palin appears to have gone the extra mile and agreed to reimburse the state for any of the trip costs that weren’t explicitly in the state’s interest.
One can argue the politics all you want, but one can only stretch the words so far.
Note: Nesting limit was reached, so this is a general reply to the sub-thread, not a reply specific to Dhoti.
“as a credit to Palin her paying it back ever after they said ‘no wrongdoing’ is showing that she has a good amount of moral fiber in her”
The quote in the original post said, “agreeing to pay the state $10,000 for trips taken by her children — money that is due Tuesday.” Would the fact that the money is “due” not indicate that it was not something that she’s volunteering to do of her own volition, but was told that she HAD to do? Because that’s how I read it.
You know, I should probably just go RTFA already, heh.
Article date was June 21, the Tuesday in question would be the 23rd, perhaps this is as simple as getting things wrapped up before the end of the fiscal quarter (June 30)?
Given that the article lead off with the October 10 ethics violation finding, but then buried the November 3 reversal of that finding inside another item, there’s more than a whiff of slanted journalism involved. It wouldn’t be too much of a leap to think that an otherwise inconsequential fact was thrown in to suggest the inference you’re making.
See post above for more detail.
Even more than that, even if there isn’t anything deeper, the fact that her children took trips on the public dime in the first place is improper. This is AT LEAST a case of “oops, i got caught”.
Her children took trips *with their mother* on the state dime. That’s not at all improper. The issue is whether some of the trips needed to be reimbursed, which is based on a fuzzy standard.
I think it certainly might be improper. Perhaps politicians have different rules, but not one person I know who travels for business (including myself, back in the day) was ever allowed to take family members with them “on the [company] dime.”
Example: I used to work for the State of Texas. A supervisor at that time was required to go on a business trip for two weeks, which span of time included his 20th wedding anniversary. His wife flew to Austin for their anniversary and the weekend, and stayed in his hotel room for the ~3-4 days she was there. One of the other travelers filed a complaint against him (and it was clearly a “vendetta” type thing) and our Legal Department investigated him.
In the end, he was required to pay the hotel fees for the days that she had stayed there, because the Legal Department said that otherwise it would be considered as the State having paid for HER lodgings – even though there was no additional charge involved. They also denied (and he had to repay) his meal expenses for the time of her visit, because they said they had no way of confirming what he’d eaten vs. what she’d eaten.
Even in the military – where family members are regularly authorized to travel with the servicemember – if you’re assigned somewhere for less than (I think) 6 months, they won’t pay for family members to travel and won’t provide lodging, even if we’re talking about a breastfeeding infant or a disabled dependent.
Now, there could of course be exceptions to that, especially because the Palins are the “first family” – if there was a function at which the family was expected to appear or something, then of course it would be perfectly logical for the kids’ travel to be covered. But that would not apply to just any old random business trip that she decided to take the kids along for.
I found a description saying that their travel is permitted “if the First Family supports an important state interest”. So, yes, there’s definitely a different standard for the governor’s family.
I’m guessing the resolution of your old boss’ case (which sucks, btw) was the same as Palin’s — i.e. “you weren’t trying to defraud us, but you still owe us money”.
What is the definition of supporting an important state interest? Presumably it involves doing actual work, no?
How about you do a little research on that point and get back to us, drunkie?
Ooh, again with the abuse. What a surprise.
Glass houses and all that, ProjectionMark. Next time, try leading off with an actual point, okay?
(puts on the hip waders)
Please check my question again. It was both civil and pertinent to the thread.
Yeah, sure, whatever. You really have been hitting the sauce tonight, haven’t you?
Let’s try one last time: are you capable of carrying on a civil conversation?
( BTW, what does that think tank pay you per post? What you do seems a lot easier than working for a living!)
Dhoti, I’d thought better of you. Specifically referring to the allegation you make about PortlandMark in your 5PM on 7th July (qv).
PM has stated on several occasions that he posts here drunk. That’s what I’m referring to.
And that would explain why you are afraid to let anyone answer a civil question, to whit: what is the definition of supporting an importandt state interest? Does it involve work, or just being paraded in front of the cameras?
Even when you try your very hardest (and it’s “to wit”, by the way, unless we’re speaking Middle English), you still can’t express yourself in a civil way. By definition, that means it’s not a civil question, and therefore not a legitimate part of the debate.
But I do love that you’re either too self-absorbed, or too inebriated, to see how that line of reasoning could possibly apply to you.
Yeah, typo.
In other words, because you don’t like me, nothing I say is regarded as civil discourse.
You can probably relax on the whole “drunk” thing, btw. You’ll find as you grow up that most adults enjoy a drink now and then, and some of them enjoy posting on the internet after they do.
Besides, if you need to attempt to ruin my credibility by questioning my sobriety, it really doesn’t say much about the strength of your argument.
What argument? What discourse? Look, dropping in with a snarky non sequitur is *not* considered civil discourse or reasoned debate, okay? Sorry, but your desire to play the high-minded victim doesn’t change that.
Perhaps, if you hadn’t used your inebriation as an excuse for some of your past bits of “civil discourse”, my mind wouldn’t immediately jump there. Just saying. (At least when you lie, you seem to do it with a straight face. I respect that, to a point; honor among cowards and all that.)
Having just caught up on this, Dhoti, you see how calling someone “drunkie” comes over, yes?
I’ve been drunk too, and still able to marshall a logical argument, so I don’t se the relevance.
Of course I do, paws — and if I broke it out in the middle of a civil conversation, you’d have cause to complain. But since PM showed up here not to debate, but to snark and insult, it’s an entirely different beast.
You’re completely off base here.
e, this will probably end up way down-thread, but such is the nature of PK threads & nesting.
Your scenario is a perfect example of what’s right being at odds with the absolute letter of the law. (i.e. your boss got screwed)
Absent the vendetta, do you think your legal department would have pursued this?
As I’ve read the Palin story, the state found no wrongdoing, and finding 10 of 72 trips to be in a gray area, did not require that Palin reimburse the cost of those trips. BUT, Palin did agree to reimburse for those trips, presumably to defuse their value for future complaints.
Not that this actually answers the question I ws asking – Is the use of public funds to defend against alegations of personal misuse of public funds a misuse of public funds under US law?
yes, it is, sorry, people around here sometimes forget to answer the question and just continue with their tangent. ^^ politics will do that to people.
I thought it probably was misuse, but since the usual conservatives were acting like this was a great sacrifice on her part…
It is a misuse, they’re not supposed to. You’re right. But again, sometimes people just don’t want to answer, or don’t know the answer. *shrug
Yeah, the 500K that she allegedly spent is less than the GOP gave her in clothing for her VP run. 500K is peanuts to the anointed darlings of the GOP. I think that The way this works is that the GOP covers all those kinds of bills, one way or another…Palin’s resignation had nothing to do with being in debt, and everything to do with greed, IMHO. She will be giving speeches at 50K PER SPEECH within a month to all the rich, deluded GOP right wing cigar smoking crowd. Not only dead fish go with the flow…..so do all GOP politicians. They cash in.
As do Democratic politicians. See Bill Clinton, and his exalted fee for public speaking. If they dont’ go on to lucrative book and speaking deals, they become pundits badmouthing the current opposition. It’s par for the course, regardless of your political party.
Yep. It should be “so do [most] politicians.”
There are a few out there who don’t try to cash in on their name-recognition, but they’re few and far between. Greed has no party affiliation.
That said, one of the first things I thought when I heard her announcement was that there was something about being in office that was holding up her book deal/s, and she wanted to start cashing in on that/those.
The difference between Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin (party politics aside), is that he actually served several terms as governor (without doing a google search, seems I recall reading 5 terms??), and two complete terms as president (including that pesky “lame-duck” timeframe). He completed the tasks that the VOTERS wanted him to do before he went out and started making money off his name.
Which is why she said that the ethics violations were costing the State of Alaska too much money.
I don’t like her, but let’s be fair: She’s paying for her DEFENSE. She’s not paying the costs associated with investigation, information-gathering, and (attempted) prosecution.
Fair enough. She did say that she was exonerated on each count, which is not precisely true, but that’s how she wants to play it.
People resigning so they don’t get fired is dumb. They want to be able to claim that “They weren’t fired” but in reality they pretty much admitted guilt when they resigned.
That’s like breaking up with your girlfriend so she can’t dump you for sleeping with her friend, just so you can say you ended it.
*Cough*Nixon*Cough*
Nixon quite properly resigned rather than bring shame on the Republican party. Never liked the man, but he knew when to fall on his sword, I’ll give him that.
well… like a good japanese samurai he fell on is sword, but he did have his second standing behind him ready to chop his head off so that pain wouldn’t last long…
I still sense evil in this woman. Evil and stupid….very dangerous.
As a mother, I don’t blame her at all. The sleazy, barbaric, uncivilized comments by the pinheads on the left were intolerable.
But, since she’s just a politician, I really don’t care anyway.
It’s GOOD to be rational and civilized…..
No pinheads on the right ever went after Chelsea Clinton, you’re absolutely correct.
Although true, that doesn’t make it right.
Being a douche and justifying it by saying “they started it” is a bit 4th grade don’t you think?
No, it doesn’t. However, the pro-Palin crowd is playing it like the evil liberals are inventing a new art form that has never been seen before, and that is incorrect.
I don’t think “me” was saying “they started it, so it’s okay for us to do it.” I think s/he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the original comment, made even more jarring because it’s accompanied by a claim of rational and civilized behavior.
“As a mother, I don’t blame her at all. The sleazy, barbaric, uncivilized comments about her kids were intolerable” would have worked just as well, without delving into the whole name-calling and broad-brush-painting that “pinheads on the left” brought into it.
“Comments by the pinheads about her kids” would have worked too. Because there were people on the right making comments, too, and I should know because I had to sit through a few family dinners with them.
if trailer trash – or even decent hoomans dont like their families held up to scrutiny, then they need to stay the hell out of politics. This is not new, or brain science….
Ah thats palins get out..
ok forget i spoke
Just curious as to why everyone thinks she has some screws loose, I wonder, are you getting the SNL skits mixed up with the real person, or is the only source of your news John Stewart and the Huffington Post?
This lady is very much qualified to lead, more so than your precious Obama, and yes, I just said that. So stop bashing her and look at the facts.
Lead? How?
She left Wasilla in debt.
Her first act as mayor was to give ‘loyalty tests’ to the librarian and other department heads.
She hired high school friends for state positions. “I loved cows as a child” is a qualification for Dept. of Agriculture?
She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, campaigned for governor using it as an example of what she would do for the state….before she repeatedly said she was against it.
Why do you have to compare her record to the ‘precious Obama’? Can she not stand on her own merits, or lack of same?
I question her continued playing of the victim – look up her comments on Hillary on youtube and see how sympathetic she was to the treatment of the her. Now she and her proxies are making it out as if no politician in the history of the world has ever been so wronged and maligned.
I’m don’t know all the details of the “loyalty tests” But, would you like to have people under you who try to undermine your authority?
What if her high school friends were actually qualified? Wouldn’t that be grounds for a job?
I also don’t know all the details on the “Bridge to Nowhere” So I won’t respond either way.
Her record along stands for itself, yes. Comparisons give perspective.
Hillary was the butt of all jokes? Hillary had to fight off ethics complaints with her own money? Hillary’s family was attacked? I don’t believe Palin is playing the victim card, people seem to be playing that for her, to make her look weak.
I haven’t researched all the circumstances behind her resignation as governer, but knowing her record, it was probably for a good reason, maybe so she doesn’t have to keep paying to defend against groundless ethics complaints, maybe family reasons I don’t know. (Just a side note, why do you think the on-going ethics complain drama isn’t in the mainstream media? Because they haven’t pinned anything on her? It’s a which hunt, that’s all it is)
“Undermine your authority”? Wouldn’t it be better to have long-term municipal employees who work for the good of the city? Specifically, Palin asked the librarian if she would ban a book if asked. When this came out, the blogosphere went crazy and soon inboxes were full of bizarre e-mails about how many books she banned, and it got so outlandish that is was dismissed…..but no one looked into what really happened. Palin may, or may not, have had a specific book in mind that the church she attends had spoken out against. She did not ask about a specific book, she asked if the librarian would follow her directive. A reporter from the Anchorage newspaper asked her why she posed the question, and Palin said “It was a loyalty test”. The next week, she fired the librarian, but had to reinstate her after public outcry. Please explain to me why a librarian needs to be loyal to the wishes of the mayor in terms of books in the public library. Several other department heads quit within the first months rather than deal with Palin, and you will note that before her term ended, the city had hired a city manager to handle personnel rather that let the authority rest with the mayor. Do you want a President who asks for loyalty, not to the nation, but to the person?
By all accounts, many of her high school friends were NOT qualified, and that is why it has raised such quesiton.
You do not question why she stepped down, but you accept that it was probably for good reason. Her own words use the cost, monetarily and personally, of the attacks, and the lame-duck status. If she cannot take attacks now, how will she withstand a national campaign (where she dished out as well as she took); if she does somehow win the presidency, will she resign with 18 months left in her term because she doesn’t want to just go on junkets and be useless?
What do you think are her plans now?
you keep making vague allusions to her “record” which seems odd that you “know” her record yet plead ignorance to many of the things that she has done or been involved in. So I’m curios what is it about her record that gives you so much confidence in her? please be specific what exactly are you referring to when you say her “record” and please give some examples.
I second Dustin’s request, and his mention of your references to her record, followed by your statements that you “don’t know” or “haven’t researched” or “weren’t following.” It doesn’t add up. So yes, please: Specifics.
If I’m judging her unfairly based on the information that I have researched and followed, because I haven’t seen the parts of her record that you are referring to, I’d like the opportunity to further educate myself and adjust my perceptions.
Having people undermine your authority is a problem for military command and personnel. Having state employees that disagree with the governor is not grounds for replacing them. That’s how single party (fascist) systems maintain themselves; anyone who disagrees is removed from any position of influence.
Palin also made baseless attacks against Obama for his “terrorist” connections. Neither Obama nor Biden stooped so low. The media did, as the media does, but I’m not voting for CNN or MSNBC or FoxNews to run the country, so the media’s presentation/dramatization of events is moot in evaluating politicians.
“Lead? How?
She left Wasilla in debt.”
*COUGH* Obama’s spending *COUGH*
OK. Does that leave Wasilla less in debt, from a politician who runs as a fiscal conservative?
I never said that it did. I was simply pointing out the blackness (chuckle) of both the pot and the kettle in that statement.
*Sneeze* Bush’s Wall Street Bailout. Bush’s Stimulus packages *Sneeze*
*Wipes nose*
Sorry. Must be cold and BS season.
Gotta love how both sides keep doing the same wrong things over and over again. Fun, isn’t it?
Simple rule of business: You have to spend money to make money.
Lets see, creating debt, hiring friends instead of qualified people, spending lots of money on a futile project then denying it.
By Republican standards she is qualified to lead.
Or a Democrat.
Don’t you love how when it comes down to it, BOTH parties are just as f*cked up as each other? Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
/wrists
I should say, “or by Democrat standards.”.
Qualified to lead? Bwaahhhhahahahahahaha! She just QUIT, genius! One of the “qualifications” of leadership is that you stick to it….she wasn’t fired, she wasn’t forced out, SHE QUIT!
She had the gall to quote McArthur in her rambling, nonsensical 19 minute swan song speech, but she should really have quoted Harry Truman, who FIRED McArthur: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”.
This 1/2 term “governor”, whose only “qualifications” were that she was a beauty queen who barely graduated from college (after transferring between 5 different schools) was that she had been the mayor of a tiny Alaskan town….(and that town thought she did a really poor job ), She isn’t qualified to run a beauty salon, let alone a government of any type. She is a TWINKY who is cashing in. Period.
LOL
You didn’t really pay attention during the election did you?
Shes not qualified to lead much more than a bake sale fundraiser for her kid’s hockey team.. And she’s a quitter. The end.
“This lady is very much qualified to lead, more so than your precious Obama, and yes, I just said that. So stop bashing her and look at the facts.”
The facts as I see them is she couldn’t lead a one car parade. I would gladly take four more years of Bush/Cheney over five minutes of Palin in the white house. All I can figure is that McCain really didn’t want to win, or someone had it in for him, for her to make it onto the ticket.
So, what is her plan? What is her higher calling? A slot on FOXnews in the evening? A run for president in 2012? Making millions as a public speaker at conservative events? Retirement from public life to care for her children and grandchild?
She was purposefully enigmatic, then get angry when there is speculation.
“She was purposefully enigmatic, then get angry when there is speculation.”
This is a sign, to me at least, of an attention-seeker and what is known in some circles as a “stirrer.”
My take on that particular aspect: She didn’t want people to start thinking their own thoughts. She wanted people to be all agog and breathless with anticipation, talking about how mysterious and exciting it all was.
I can’t get quite the right words to express this, but she wants to be up on a pedestal and have everyone looking up to her – they don’t have to look up to her in admiration; cowed submission would be fine too. (See the thing with the librarian’s “loyalty test”) And I think she suffers from the “Paris Hilton syndrome,” wherein she doesn’t want to be fawned upon for actually DOING anything – just for EXISTING.
I shouldn’t post this because it’s not coming out quite right, but maybe someone else will be able to rephrase what I’m trying to say..
I think you have a point about the attention seeking. She isn’t running for anything at the moment, and yet she feels the need to be so in the public eye still. She complains about her children being the brunt of jokes, which, by the way she isn’t the first so she can’t play the victim card, and yet she chooses to remain in such a public position? It isn’t logical to me. You would think she would step down to get away from the media, but instead she is apparently inflaming the ‘left’ biased towards her. I’m baffled as to what she wanted to achieve.
I don’t like her simply because the idea of her running the White House was chilling to me. I didn’t take my opinion of her from the SNL skits, but from watching her on the campaign and listening to her politics. I came up with my own conclusions, and the media had nothing to do with it for those who will undoubtedly try to jump down my throat. I find her slightly incompetent.
For all the attention she’s getting, she’s doing nothing to really deserve it or if she truly hates to fix it. McCain didn’t milk it after he lost. It’s got to say something about the man.
“Step down to get away from the media” – when I heard her announcement, do you know what it reminded me of? A couple of other people in the news lately… Kate wossname of that reality show with all the kids, calling a press conference to alert the media that she didn’t want any media coverage and would not be calling any more press conferences. And, Michael Jackson’s doctor, making his ?third? announcement to the press that he would be making no comment on any developments. Why not just…. NOT DO IT? Why call a press conference to announce that you’re not – it’s just dumb, you know? It’d be like me going to a bar to celebrate my decision not to go out to bars anymore.
It’s the whole “Go away, don’t leave me” routine that you usually only see in adolescent girls and drunks. In pseudo-celebrities (reality TV people), okay, you can kind of expect it – in the case of MJ’s doctor, I can understand it, especially in wake of all the fake interviews that have been coming up; it probably is prudent for him to announce occasionally that, “Hey, anything you hear with my name on it? Wasn’t me.” But when you have a major politician acting like that, and showing interest in the White House, it’s terrifying.
And speaking of “just not doing it”:
The biggest thing I didn’t understand about her statement, the part where she said she “didn’t want to put the citizens of Alaska through” having a lame-duck governor who’s “just there for the paycheck” was — then just DON’T DO THAT.
It’s a valid observation – a lot of people in office, when they know they can’t or won’t or don’t want to get re-elected, just coast, and I think it’s a disgrace, and I give her props for not wanting to do that. But… just don’t. She doesn’t have to quit to avoid the lame-duck syndrome; she could just, you know, put her back into it, and do her job as diligently and enthusiastically as if the election was going to be next week and her entire life depended on getting re-elected. She could have accomplished* even MORE, as a lame-duck, because she wouldn’t have been distracted by fund-raising, campaigning, public appearances – she could have really made a difference and set an example for how it should be done. Instead, she chose this path.
Can you imagine if she ever WERE elected to the White House? Would she do the same thing halfway into her presidential term, step down because she didn’t want to be “just collecting a paycheck”? I hope, if she ever runs, that the people who are voting for her would be just as content to vote for her VP, because if this is any indicator, s/he’d be in the Oval Office before too long…
.
*In theory. I’m not too sure that SHE could have accomplished much, but – let’s just say “a capable, savvy, ambitious person could have accomplished” etc.
see, and that’s a lot of stuff I’ve been thinking with her stepping down. and the whole media coverage of everything and her getting in a huff. if you don’t want it, don’t do it. You signed up for it when you ran, and as cruel as that is to say, it’s like saying to a celebrity “now, you’re gonna be big, but if you just keep having press conferences and punching paparazzi then they will leave you alone”. not really.
Sounds to me like the same load of BS that idiot from Nirvana gave for blowing his head off.
Yeah, but Kurt’s solution was a bit more final.
Messy, too.
And he left us with Courtney Love, which was just MEAN on his part.
e, the right words to express it is Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
From mayoclinic.com:
“Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”
I think that last sentence is the proverbial hammer hitting a nail. Or finger on a nose? Or finger up a nose?
I have always supported her and agreed with almost all she stands for but this move was wrong imo. I don’t think the ethics charges would have been an issue. That’s mostly a witch hunt. Besides, she can’t avoid them by stepping down anyway. And, they would not have made her step down anyway if found guilty. Thats not how our politics work.
Serious question. Why do her loyalty tests as mayor of Wasilla not bother you?
/offtopic: I would like to good-naturedly suggest that you use another username.
You see, our opinions on this are remarkably similar, and I keep finding myself reading posts and thinking, “Wait, it says that the person who wrote this was me, and it does sound exactly like something I *would* say, but I don’t remember *saying* it! Have I been drinking-and-posting again??”
(c:
(I need to change my own user name… I keep wanting to see if anyone’s replied to a comment, but when I look for my posts by doing a ctrl-F for “e”….)
Serious question. You realize that she never actually distributed a real, McCarthy-style loyalty test, correct? That the term was used to describe the motivation for a different action entirely?
[link]
Her words. The ADN reporter asked her why she has asked the librarian about (theoretically) banning books, and Palin replied, “It was a loyalty test.” The next week she fired the librarian who had replied that no, she would not ban a book based on a mayoral request.
How would you describe that scenario?
I would describe *that scenario* as a loyalty test, yes, which it was. That’s not the issue.
You’re deliberately twisting her words to achieve an entirely different connotation — not that she took actions intended as loyalty tests, but that she issued loyalty tests, which has a very specific and very different meaning.
You do so here in your 6:21 comment, but even more obviously in your 6:14 comment: “Her first act as mayor was to give ‘loyalty tests’ to the librarian and other department heads.”
Sorry, I’m not used to people *old* enough to recall the McCarthy era. I didn’t mean to cause confusion, I was just using her own words. I don’t know what else to call them.
Back on topic, this has been ignored by almost everyone – after the bizarre off-shoots by the blogosphere and the freaky over-the-top e-mails, Palin was able to dismiss is as just another attack, and never addressed it, and the press followed along with it. I would like it to be explored further, if she is going to seek the presidency.
I’m not, by a long shot; I just know my history.
I wouldn’t say the press bought it — I still see the accusation pop up every now and again; in fact, I just saw it in Vanity Fair not too long ago — I just think the public doesn’t really care. (See Obama’s sacking of the IG who refused to drop a stimulus-related complaint. Seems like the same scenario, similar outrage from the other side of the aisle, but no attention.)
Sorry, Dhoti, I try not to argue too much with you but I have to agree with ‘me’. When I first heard of that it’s one of the things that discredited her in my mind.
In that case, would you mind giving us a (hopefully unbiased) third-party opinion? When you first read “Palin gave the librarian a loyalty test” or whatever, what did you think of? And how close was it to what actually happened?
I don’t know what actually happened since I wasn’t there. No one except the librarian and Palin know what happened that day, and no reporter or news outlet will be able to give me an unbiased opinion. No matter how much I dig. I merely took into fact both accounts of the situation and found that, no matter how much Palin probably needed to DO a loyalty test to make sure there would be no huge amounts of insubordination, that I didn’t approve of how she did it.
Then again I read a lot, and the idea of banning books of any kind instantly gets me going. ^^
I didn’t mean whether Palin did it to test the woman’s loyalty — by all accounts she did, and I think even her fan club agrees — but whether, when you read “loyalty test”, did you think of a McCarthy-style formal loyalty test, or just a “do this or you’re fired” scenario?
And what kind of books get banned in Wasilla, anyway? Southern California and Florida travel guides, I’m assuming…
Neither of those. It was more of a testing of the water from what I could see and what I took from it. I’ve had that happen to me before when a new store manager came in and wanted to see how loyal I was to my old boss as opposed to her. I merely did as I was told but also laid out what I wanted to keep from my old boss, and now we get along great.
So, roundabout way of saying, I think it was a testing the waters, see how far she could get with the librarian (no sexual inclination intended). And the fact that she didn’t budge might have wounded either Palin’s pride or made her rethink the woman’s employment.
So, neither. There, oh god I get wordy.
Fair enough. Thanks!
You’re welcome? I just enjoy having debates and seeing where there are holes in either my thinking, or someone else’s. It’s fun to argue, but at the same time have the ability to concede that maybe you’re wrong. It’s a shame more on here don’t have the ability to just go “meh, I dunno, but here’s how I think and it’s probably wrong”.
now i’m just rambling, don’t mind me. ^^
I wasn’t being sarcastic — looking back, I see how it might be interpreted that way. I was just trying to get an outside read on the phrase.
and I can’t remember what kind of books were in question. It wouldn’t shock me if it were those, haha, I would want to move if I lived in Alaska. I like cold, just not that cold.
Here’s a link (warning, PDF) from the city claiming they never banned a book. I’m assuming the pressure from the press would be enough incentive not to lie, but who knows?
Interesting, nonetheless.
They never did ban a book. Palin never asked for a specific book to be banned, although at much the same time members of the church she attends were discussing the impropriety of Heather Has Two Mommies. Palin is now getting by with stopping the conversation by saying that no book was ever banned, and the deeper issue of her assessing the loyalty of city employees to *her* instead of their jobs and the city has been dropped.
If you have a problem with the phrase ‘loyalty test’, your issue is with Palin and not the messenger who repeats her words.
Correlation != causation. I’m sure members of her church were also discussing the illegalization of abortion, too, and she never acted on it. Or did she?
No, my problem is with you, for unfaithfully repeating her words. (Not a messenger, btw.) Ignorance, feigned or real, is no excuse.
Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman. Dangerous stuff.
I can tell you where I found it:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/529275.html
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/515512.html
I’m not Alicia, but I can give you my (more or less third-party) opinion…
I am very active in an online community devoted to debunking all kinds of rumors, scams, frauds, and teasing out the origins of folklore and superstition. So when I first read the emailed account of the librarian thing, which IIRC had a list of “the books she banned,” I thought, “Oh please. Book bannings, in this day and age – give me a break. People are so stupid; no politician in their right mind in this country would EVER try to have any books banned from a public library – it’s controversial enough when elementary school librarians do it.”
I expected that the truth of the matter – IF there were any truth to it at all – would be more along the lines of, they were in the library, one of Palin’s kids wanted to check out a copy of the Kama Sutra, she said, “I absolutely forbid the presence of that book in my house,” and some bystander stopped listening after “forbid the presence of that book” because they were running off to send an email about how she was trying to ban books in the library.
When I started reading more into it, and saw that she had asked the librarian “would you if I told you to,” I thought, “Well, surely this was just a private, idle discussion that got taken out of context and twisted all out of proportion.” I thought that the truth of the matter would be something like Palin and the librarian talking about a book they hadn’t enjoyed, and Palin saying jokingly, “Yeah, that author was so bad I think you should just ban all his books from the library!”
I honestly kept expecting to find that it was all some convoluted, mangled misrepresentation of a completely innocuous and probably flippant remark. I was gobsmacked when FactCheck, among others, did their analysis and concluded that her inquiries about bannings actually did take place.
Regardless of whether she may have ever wanted any books to be banned or was just gauging a person’s reaction, it’s beyond the pale, to me, to think that would be considered a reasonable question.
This is a personal view, you understand, but to my way of thinking, asking “What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?” would be on a par with “What would your response be if I asked you to set up a separate drinking fountain for the non-whites?”
The only way I would ever see the question as a reasonable one and not a setup for “Well, she won’t cooperate, so I had to fire her” situation, would be if it were immediately followed by, “Because some of them are simply falling apart, and have bookworms. They should be taken out of circulation and replaced with new copies.”
I was asking more about the phrase “loyalty test” rather than about the book-burnings themselves.
I’ve seen it repeated all over, just like me at 6:14, saying that Palin gave employees loyalty tests. To me, that’s intended to imply that she gave McCarthy-style tests to people, while hiding behind the fact that she used to words “loyalty test”, but in a completely different context.
“No, my problem is with you, for unfaithfully repeating her words. (Not a messenger, btw.) Ignorance, feigned or real, is no excuse.”
I’m confused. Palin called it a loyalty test. I’m not unfaithfully repeating her words or putting any other connotation on them. She gave her municipal department heads a loyalty test – to her, not to the city. Do you dispute that? Is that a tactic you agree with?
*sigh* How many times must I repeat myself to you? (Btw, the clumsy attempt at misdirection in your last sentence is why I think it’s feigned ignorance.)
Saying “Palin gave [someone] a loyalty test” has a very specific connotation, one that differs markedly from “Palin asked [someone] a question as a test of their loyalty”.
Ok. Just how many questions did she have to (have) asked before her actions became a “loyalty test”? You’ve obviously thought about this, so I’d expect a quantitative answer rather than unfounded abuse, aspertions on my sobriety or the like!
But that’s how Dhoti operates when confronted with an opinion or facts he/she doesn’t like. Rather than supply quantitative answers which he/she can’t give without a huge alteration in his/her own opinion, unfounded abuse and insinuations into another poster’s character sprout out of nowhere and there you have it.
He/she has shown some measure of reasoned comment of late, but when pushed hard on stuff he/she doesn’t want to alter, this is what results. It doesn’t help that some folks who engage Dhoti also engage in similar tactics.
Paws, since we (and on my side I include “people who are up on their Cold War American history”) have a different definition of “loyalty test”, there’s no number that will turn your version into mine. (See my reply to e below for an example of what a loyalty test would actually have entailed.)
Thanks for your contribution, lowly. (Apparently that’s tactic #2 here: make those sorts of accusations, loudly and repeatedly, in hopes they’ll drown out the evidence to the contrary.)
(Unfounded? In PM’s case, hardly, as I explained. Check the archives.)
I should probably google this before exposing my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by “McCarthy-style tests”? I know who McCarthy was and have a loose idea of what he’s notorious for (i.e., “anyone who doesn’t asskiss me is a dirty red Commie”), but I’m not really following the distinction between a “loyalty test” (which, IIRC, were Palin’s words) and a “McCarthy-style loyalty test.” Do you have to have a #2 pencil for the McCarthy one or something?
And apologies for the tangent, since that wasn’t the question you were asking (and if I’d paid attention to the comment I was actually replying to, instead of trying to read them all at once, I might have seen that). I wanted to show, though, that not everyone who is appalled by the concept is a knee-jerk believe-anything auto-hater, as is a common assumption.
I generally do a lot of research, searching out information from any and all “sides” of an issue, before I solidify an opinion, and I get so tired of people saying that I am so gullible, so uninformed, take my information from forwarded emails, only because the opinion I hold is not the one they want me to hold.
In the 60s, you’d occasionally have to take loyalty oaths for (primarily government) positions, saying you weren’t a Communist, wouldn’t support a Communist, would rat out a Communist, would resist the overthrow of the government, etc. Couple that with McCarthy’s hearings, attempts to get people to name names, all that good stuff.
Put that together, and when I hear “loyalty test”, I think of Palin grilling someone like “so, who else has talked to you? Who’s out to get me? What about Bob in Accounting? What have you heard?”, not “hey, do this or I’ll can you”.
Democrats won’t leave her alone, will they? They know she’s a threat, so they decide to dig up false crap on her and make her seem like an idiot. She would have been a much better candidate than McCain or Obama or a combination of the two. And a better president to boot. The reason she’s resigning is so Alaska won’t have to pay to protect her from this democratic BS. If you’re a democrat and participate in this gross misuse of time, shame on you. There is absolutely no proof that Sarah Palin deserves this kind of abuse. She was a fine governor of Alaska and I will sincerely miss her.
And for the dumb-asses: Barack Obama is NOT the messiah. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS.
This has nothing to do with Obama, and Republicans are making their share of unkind comments. Did you not know that?
If she was a good governor, why are you not upset that she is stepping down from her job in mid-term so she ‘won’t be a lame duck’? Are you sure she’s resigning so Alaska won’t have to pay – I understood her to be paying her own legal bills. which is it?
Forgive me: I was in a moment of rage. I was sick of seeing all of these things making her look stupid.
From what I understand, it was so Alaska won’t have to pay. I am not sure what conclusions you have been making, but from the information I have received, those were the ones I was making.
And yet she has personal legal bills because she has been fighting them on her own, not through the state system.
She also says she doesn’t want to be a lame duck – so she just dumped on the integrity and performance of every other elected offical who chose to acually serve to the end of the term instead of quittiing 18 months early.
As for “making her look stupid”, she seems to be doing an adequate job on her own with that one. Her announcement was rambling, incoherent at times, gave no real information as to her reasons or her future plans and did a lot to condemn all the mean people who are saying bad things about her….while giving them fodder to continue to do so.
Okay I got it- I probably got some bad info. But you correcting me so like an unruly pupil is certainly not changing my opinion of her. In fact, the only thing it is doing, is lowering my opinion of you. I accept the first correction- I would have done the same thing had I been in your position- but doing it MULTIPLE times? I accept coaching, but not someone coming up and saying “you’re wrong” on multiple occasions. Not only that, I find your corrections of me to be a bit rude.
A discussion is now rude? I have no intention of changing your opinions. I ask why you have to insult one person to defend another.
You have not commented on her other reason for quitting, that of her lame duck status.
I totally agree with your original post, don’t get me wrong, but according to various stories I’ve read, she’s paying for defense out of pocket, but I could be wrong? Any insights?
As I said before, I am merely making conclusions on the information I received. She could be paying out of pocket, the state could be paying for her, or a combination of the two.
First off a threat? hardly she is far to divisive certainly anyone on the left will put in a great deal of effort to vote against her she drives away any even remotely moderate people and even someone like me who considers himself right leaning and a strong fiscal conservative. The fact is she appeals to only a minority of people even within the republican party.
People like her are the reason people like me don’t want to call ourselves republicans anymore her breed of “republican” back seats the idea of small government, fiscal conservancy and individual rights in favor of promoting some bizarre theocracy where the only important thing is being “socially conservative” and willing to legalize and dictate morality. the bible thumpers have hijacked the party which is sad because there in the minority and it’s there fault for the desperate straits the party is in atm and palin is the epitome of that. Of course She has the unconditional support of people who know or care nothing about government except for it’s use as a pulpit but that is no where near enough to win and if the republicans keep pandering to the far religious right they are going to loose even more of there supporters including me.
Lastly have you ever stopped to consider that it’s not some vast conspiracy to “make her seem like an idiot” but that she is in fact an idiot?
I for one don’t care for one-party rule. There needs to be a SANE opposition party in this country. The longer the GOP pursues Palin (or anyone remotely like her) to lead them, the more likely it is that said opposition party WON’T be the GOP.
You think the liberals are any more sane than the conservatives?
The liberals have there own fare share of nutty individuals no dispute on that from me, the difference being that the psychos on the liberal side are largely marginalized and not given near the authority republicans give to there hardcore fringe.
It just seems to me and many others who are dismayed with the current state of the republican party that the lunatics are running the asylum.
Dustin beat me to it.
It does merit a mention that the nuttiest Dem I can think of is actually now a former Dem who recently got arrested trying to run a blockade in Gaza, and would NEVER be seriously considered for the Presidency.
Simply put: Yes.
You’re going to tell me the actions of the Republic party over Terry Schiavo was rational?
Nope. Personally, I hate both parties. I’m a fan of, you know, THINKING.
Dustin, as the far-left, loon, socialist, liberal, whatever the Fox news morons like to insult, I say this: If people like you actually ran the Republican party this country would be a better place 1000 times over. As it is the Republic party is exactly what you’ve described and the reason why people like me are as venomously opposed to it’s standings as we are.
I wish there were more rational people on the right who were willing to compromise and find a more centerist position, then we on the left would be more wiling to actually step away from our far-left views. Unfortunately your party got hijacked and swung so far to the right, the only way to maintain any sort of balance was for us to swing equally as far to the left.
So, you have my respect for your comments. I wish there were more intelligent Republicans I could debate policy with instead of the stupid Republics who I have to have firefights over ideology.
And another serious question, though perhaps not directed to you, just anyone who might know.
If she steps down, would the ethics charges just go away? Would it not be wrong-doing because she’s no longer in office? I don’t know how much of any given “ethics charge” is actually “this is illegal” and how much is just “we don’t like what you did there” – but, if an action has been committed that is an ethics violation, wouldn’t it still be an ethics violation even if the person quit whatever job they were in that they violated the ethics of?
Say, the investigation that was mentioned above, where she was found innocent of wrongdoing but still ordered to repay $10,000 (and I still hope someone can explain that to me) – if she had stepped down before the investigation was completed, would she still have to repay that money? Or would they just say “never mind”?
Or is she talking about potential future investigations, sort of saying, “Maybe now they’ll stop turning every time I fart into an ethics issue”?
“all of these things making her look stupid.”
You mean like 3/4 of the interviews she gave during the campaign?
Serious, sincere question:
Have you ever heard *anyone* other than right-wing talking heads, and possibly Oprah, refer to Obama as a messiah?
Because I haven’t, and I live in a heavily Democratic area, and socialize* with some VERY VERY liberal people, like FRINGE liberal. And I have never heard ANYONE say, imply, or speculate that Obama is the messiah.
I ask this question of a lot of people who make this charge; the closest I’ve ever come to anyone saying, “Yes, here’s where,” was someone who gave me a YouTube of a lady, the day after the election, saying that times have been hard for her family but now she feels hopeful for the future. Hardly messianic; if we use that criterion, then every paycheck I get is a messiah!
This is something that I have personally been accused of (believing he’s “the messiah”), and it’s the last thing that would ever cross my mind. I have hopes for the guy, just like I have hopes for every president, especially when they’re fresh and new. I didn’t like Bush, but I had hopes that he would turn out to be better than I expected. I like Obama (although I’m uncertain about his experience), and I have hopes that he’ll turn out to be as good as most of his supporters expect. And that is the position, give or take, that every Obama supporter I know embraces.
I’ve never met, heard, or seen ANYONE who actually thinks he’s anything close to a messiah. I’ve only heard a lot of people telling us to stop thinking that. So – where are all the people who ARE thinking and saying that?
.
*This means “hang out with” not “turn people into communists”
I keep getting crap from people that say they “heard” some idiot say they didn’t have to pay their rent/bills/some other such nonsense now that Obama had been elected. Never verified, never substantiated.
And you’re correct, only Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn “The Crying Game” Beck and others of his ilk spout this crap, because it motivates the wingers, even though it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. I swear, it’s like they want all of their base up in clock towers picking off the “unreal” Americans.
sorry, getting off topic, FOAMY!!! <3
He is my hero.
I love that squirrel. I used to watch all of the videos in high school. The squirrel songs are bad ass.
Now…….. I feel like a total nerd.
Embrace the nerd – become the nerd!
hey, hey, i reserve that for the fact that once i get off my ass and stop debating randomly with you guys that I’m gonna play video games all day.
You just made me want to watch foamy again for the first time in months.
Then Indie has done you a great and wonderful service.
Video games are good indeed.
“And the geek shall inherit the Earth”
Ramen.
Oh, it was totally verified. It was on Southpark, after all…
You have to remember that the people who throw out that accusation don’t understand the concept of admiration without worship. These are the people who raised Reagan and W. to messianic status because of their ideology and now think that because Obama is as popular in the polls to the left as Reagan and W. were to them, that obviously we must think the same way and consider Obama our “messiah”.
How about you get through your head that Palin isn’t the messiah as well? The woman kills wolves from a helicopter. The Alaskan wolf is now an endangered species thanks to her bill to have hunters paid whenever they bring in a wolf forearm. They also have recently been proven to have taken place in denning, which means they killed the packs PUPS after they killed the entire pack needlessly. She is so far from an animal rights activist that it’s stunning. And yet she tried to play that card in the election.
Also, I am a democrat. I am well aware of Obama’s pit falls. I am also aware of where McCain would have been a help to all of this, but also a hindrance. You need to be able to look at all sides. Which you seem to be ignoring. You have to realize that ANYONE put into this position would be vilified by either side.
I’m sorry, I was incensed by your comment. But I couldn’t just let that go.
I honestly wonder what might have happened if McCain and Obama had managed – work with me here, it’s my fantasy world and I can furnish it however I want – to somehow get elected together.
There are a lot of things about McCain that I didn’t like – his “air quote ‘health of the mother’ air quote” quip being one of the most memorable. But I do think he truly, sincerely, wanted to serve the country and I think he had the potential to be a good leader in certain regards.
But I’ll tell you this much… even if the Democrats had run some horrible, horrible person, I *still* would not have voted for McCain, even if he *hadn’t* made that air-quotes quip; his age and history of health problems made it too likely, IMO, that Palin would wind up in the Big Seat before it was all over, and that scares the hell out of me.
Same, that’s one of the reasons I didn’t vote for McCain. I actually liked his politics. He’s no where near as conservative as my other liberal friends made him out to be. I would have voted for Ron Paul though if he had gotten the nomination. His health was too touchy for me to trust him to complete his term, and if he won a second, the second one as well. I do not want Palin as my President. I would move.
I think McCain would make a good adviser. I do admit that Obama hasn’t been in office long, as either a Senator or a President, has less experience than I would like. McCain, despite past discretion’s, has been in it for a long time. He would have brought a good balancing act to the Cabinet. I’m just not sure I would want him as my President.
However, I like the old way of electing the leader. The loser became VP and the winner obviously was Pres.
That would make things so much easier…
The problem with John McCain is that sold his soul to the ideologues. He went from being the maverick he claimed he was in the campaign, to being just another ass kisser for the far right. I had huge amounts of respect for John McCain, until he ran for president this last time around.
Well, that and ditching his injured first wife and mother of his kids to marry the gal with the money. Otherwise, I agree with your comment. He sold his soul to get to the top of the ticket.
“The Alaskan wolf is now an endangered species”. — It is specious and unresearched arguments that bring question to whether you are repeating pin-heads (from whatever side) or forming an informed opinion.
from Defenders of Wildlife website (www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php):
“Under the Endangered Species Act* (ESA), gray wolves are listed as endangered throughout the United States except for Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Wolves in Alaska are not listed under the ESA.”
Gray wolves are endangered in the lower 48. The population in Alaska is over 7500 and growing.
This is not to claim that she is an animal rights activist, but using false and unproven claims as part of your reasoning for disliking someone, brings into question the rest of the reasonings, no matter how well thought out or possibly valid.
Just because people like Obama does not mean they think he’s any sort of messiah. Stop saying that, you just make yourself sound like an idiot who parrots right-wing talk shows/radio. No one prays to Obama, there haven’t been any Church of Obama buildings erected, NO ONE thinks he’s any sort of messiah.
I actually think you have some decent ideas, but pointing to the left and saying “BLAH BLAH BLAH DEMOCRATS BAD!!!” doesn’t help your cause.
I agree, spending is bad, bailouts are bad, but offer some IDEAS instead of BLAME. (Yes I know there are dumbasses on the left who do the same thing, that doesn’t make it a good idea.)
Isn’t if funny that they refer to Obama as the “Messiah”. Yet there is video of right wing children camp leaders having the kids pray to a cardboard cutout of Bush?
I would ask for a link, but to be honest I am sure I would not be able to bring myself to watch it.
Featured in the documentary “Jesus Camp”
Don’t watch it after eating.
Or before a planned meal.
Or before bed.
For the record… I consider myself a fairly right wing christian, and that even disturbs me to a point.
She’s no threat. She’s a joke. Try finding some Goldwater republicans again and try to save your party.
It’s not quitting! It’s advancing in another direction! Get it right!!! DX
/sarcasm
Yeah. It’s called “retreat”.
Then you have the real losers who “Retreat in reverse” and push on.
Her resignation speech lacked direction and she kept praising things, i.e, Alaska and soldiers. Placating is a bad thing in speeches; some compliments are good, but don’t overdo it! Well, I did believe her. I thought she could get experience, and go places.
I guess I’ll keep believing in dogs and horses. Bo Obama for president.
Sit down, shut up. Also, Sarah, some fish DO swim with the flow.
* believe IN her (before all this)
well, she did win her bid to be governor.
i’m just sayin
Still very scared of her, are you not?
I am, I admit it freely. I am frankly *terrified* of anyone who is that uninformed, that inarticulate, and that willing to throw others under the yoke of her own personal religious beliefs – yet still manages to get elected to a fairly important public office and has people slobbering over her because of her physical appearance, her “folksy ways,” and her self-proclaimed yet unsubstantiated character strengths.
inarticulate? i wonder who else is inarticulate without being told what to say…
Too true, too true. GWB was VERY inarticulate without being told what to say. You nailed that one!
Hey, wasn’t Palin on the LOSING vp ticket? Why is she still talked about on a national scale all these months later? Why do liberals care? I sure wouldn’t care unless I was an Alaskan. Are all of you Alaskans?
Mostly because she keeps doing the whole “look at me” thing. I personally don’t care about the woman, and am just killing time by being here. In all fairness, you have to wonder at the amount of attention she’s getting and how little McCain, the presidential candidate, is. It’s a little… mind boggling.
Why is Mark Sanford being talked about on a national scale?
Why is John Ensign being talked about on a national scale?
Why is Marion Berry being talked about on a national scale?
Same reason as Palin is: They’re all doing stuff that makes us wonder what on earth they were thinking of.
“Especially when all these lawmakers are lining up for office. Their desire would be to clobber the administration left and right so that they can position themselves for office. I’m not going to put Alaskans through that,” the governor said, wearing a Cabela’s fishing bib as she stood on a Bristol Bay beach outside Dillingham.
She’ll have explain this one if she wants to run for the Presidency….if she can’t deal with it on the state level, how can she be expected to deal with it on a national level?
Its entertaining just to watch liberals squirm whenever this woman speaks.
come no. can you help but laugh? it´s hard not to squirm.
I squirm when she speaks, but not because I’m a liberal – it’s because I keep wanting to tell her that her verb tenses and plurals don’t match, and she left a clause hanging back there so that’s an incomplete sentence, and that is not the preposition she should have used.
And, if I saw anything that she typed, I would probably squirm because I wanted to tell her that she should remember that ‘its’ is a possessive, and ‘it’s’ is a contraction of ‘it is,’ such as in “It’s entertaining.” (c:
I also want to ask her who her fifth kid is – that is to say, the fifth kid that she mentions in the link at my name. She said,
“I polled the most important people in my life, my kids [about the decision to step down, and the response] was four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah!” And the ‘Hell, yeah’ sealed it.”
Now, Trig’s only 14 months old, which is simply too young to comprehend the situation, much less give an opinion about it. A 14 month old is not able to give a valid answer to anything much above the level of “Do you want a cookie?”
So, either she considers Todd one of her kids, or Levi is back in the family’s good graces (or has been replaced), or there is a previously unmentioned Palin child lurking around somewhere.
Because I’m sure she would NEVER say something that was untrue but maybe sounded good and might add to her “folksy, down-home, devoted mother” image. NEVER EVER.
(By the way, her full quote, found at the link, is another example of why I squirm. “While in response to asking, ‘Hey, do you want me to be a positive influence and fight for all our children’s futures from outside the governor’s office?’ it was four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah.’” WHY IS THERE A “While” THERE??)
Funny, I hadn’t noticed she added an extra kid. I was wondering about the contribution of the youngest ones in the decision. She did say that someday she’ll tell us all about it, so your question should be answered eventually.
No offense to 14-month-old kids, but they’re a lot like dogs in that way. You can ask them pretty much anything and get the response you want based on your attitude and verbal inflections. Smile cheerily and happily ask “You want Mommy to quit her job?” and you’ll probably get some type of positive reaction.
You want mommy to kill her boss, cutie bear? Oooh, who’s the bestest baby in the world? You are! (That’s me demonstrating Diss’ point, by the way.)
I see that you begin sentences with prepositions and conjuctions. :p
I swear this entire site is filled with washed up English teachers.
Substance, people!
That sentence is in the passive voice. It would be much better if you rewrote it in the active voice.
I freaking love you, Eric.
Yep, trolls.
awesome… anyways, her quitter here makes her more of a winner than ever before. or maybe we are the winners, for not having to put up with all her nonsense anymore.
Just out of curiosity, aside from appearing in the news, what nonsense have you personally been dealt by Palin? Do you live in Alaska? Sure, her face appears on the news, but unless you live in her home state, I can pretty much imagine any nonsense is in your mind.
Shh, Eddie, I put all the nonsense in the Twilight fans’ heads to keep them off the site. If you don’t comment, they’ll go away.
Oh right, sorry about that!
Rasmussen poll:
Forty percent of Republican voters said the governor’s decision did not hurt her odds in 2012, while 24 percent think Palin’s move helps her chances of securing her party’s nomination. Twenty-eight percent said it will have no impact.
Conservatives and moderates are split over the governor’s move. Fifty-two percent of self-identified GOP moderates said Palin’s move will hurt her chances in 2012, while only 37 percent of conservatives think she has harmed her chances.
“In general, the higher a Republican voter’s income level and educational achievement, the more likely he or she is to think Palin’s decision to resign will hurt her bid for the GOP nomination,” the polling firm observed in its analysis of the survey .
What danger does a librarian pose that requires a “Loyalty” test?
She could ….shush you? Fine you .20 per day? Give you a nice paper cut and rub lemon juice on it? I got nothin’…
Put the Whamy Damy Dewy Decimal Headlock on your kids when they come in to do a book report?
I’m not sure, DWN, whether it means she took over the town and brainwashed them, or whether it just proves that she’s an idiot.
Well, I can only assume idiot because she did it in the first place then tried to used Loyalty Test as a response that was supposed to clear her of sounding like an idiot.
Maybe the librarian was spreading rumors about her cheesy romance novel addiction.
DWN, I can’t let you do this, man.
Check out factcheck.org about this issue — “False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.” It has a fair and balanced piece regarding the so called “loyalty” test.
I don’t think it’s what you think it is.
What do you think it is? Palin asked the librarian if, theoretically, she would ban a book if asked to do so. Palin, in her own words, called it a loyalty test. The librarian was fired. What’s the misinformation?
Read the link. Was I talking to you?
I’m the one who brought up the topic of loyalty tests. By her own words, Palin gave loyalty tests within a week of becoming mayor. Her words, not “so-called”.
BTW, she was forced to rehire the librarian after community support for the woman.
Read the link, and quit spreading rumors.
Unless, that is, you disagree with factcheck.org
*ignores*
Which part is incorrect, that Palin asked the librarian if she would ban a book if asked, or that Palin herself used the words “Loyalty test” when asked about it. I’m not sure which part you are disputing.
Ignore me all you want, the question remains.
Can you read?
*teabag*
“She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.”
Palin asked the question. Palin described the question, when asked by a reporter from the Anchorage Daily News, as a “loyalty test”. What factcheck does not clarify is that the librarian was fired, then rehired after public outcry.
Which part am I ‘spreading rumors’ about?
Yeah, ‘cuz factcheck.org lies all the time.
Isn’t there enough to work with that you don’t have to lie, dooshie?
Again, which part is lying? Factcheck left out some information about the librarian being fired and then rehired (she did indeed continue in her job).
Factcheck also says that the question about banning books was asked. The ADN quotes Palin as saying it was a loyalty test. That part of the story is not in dispute, and yet you dispute it. Why?
Because you touch yourself at night.
A lot.
But don’t worry.
So do I.
Go butter a muffin, Tyler.
How I wish, DT.
Then skin a snake. Whatev.
Don’t worry, my man, you’ll get some.
Someday.
………….
Eventually.
Probably.
Well, most likely!
i think she really just didn’t like the fact that she opposed her in the elections…
Funny, but the ADN says she wasn’t fired but was “asked for her resignation”, along with “Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.” (Interesting side note: She was seeing the Chief of Police, Irl)
—-(www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html)
— and this is where the ADN uses the phrase “Loyalty Test”. Now, if people are going to get mad at a (then) mayor for using such tactics, claiming it is a “republican” thing then perhaps they should look at Gavin Newsome, San Francisco Mayor.. arguably one of the most liberal mayors in the nation who did a similar thing.
—-)www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/14/BAAOS5L27.DTL)
From your link:
According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.
Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.
What, are you Emmon’s fu(k buddy or something?
Sheesh. What a doosh.
@me
And that quote proves what? A letter stating she will be fired is not a letter saying you are fired. Nor does the letter, according to the article itself state that iw as for censorship issues. Ms. Emmons was the girlfriend at the time of the Police Chief, who was fired for lying to the council. Both of them opposed Palin as mayor. Guilt by association and actions, however unfounded is often used as a basis for judgement (look at Obama and how half the far right think he is a terrorist sympathizer). Doesn’t make it right, but it certainly isn’t illegal or even immoral.
Twisting words and situations to strengthen a point without regards to hard factual evidence isn’t either…
From adn.com:
“Alaska Legislators are questioning whether Gov. Sarah Palin can appoint the state’s No. 2 elected official without their input. ”
Interesting to the end……………..
Crooks and Liars has a list of some of Palin’s Greatest Hits I’d love to share. Sorry for the copy and paste:
{http://crooksandliars.com/node/29458} for the full list.
“To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I’m going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I’m not discouraged at all.” (Asked if she was discouraged by polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket trailing, October 22, 2008.)
“They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” (Asked by ABC’s Charles Gibson “what insight into Russian actions” the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)
“Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of… We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.” (Asked by CBS’ Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)
“John McCain and I, we love you and thank you for spending a few minutes to talk to me.” (Talking with Canadian radio prankster posing as French Presideny Nicolas Sarkozy, November 1, 2008.)
“Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it…When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her — a statement like that…It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.” (On Hillary Clinton’s complaints about her treatment by the media, March 2008.)
“There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.” (Asked by NBC’s Brian Williams, “Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist?” October 23, 2008.)
I want to see this caption again when she becomes president.
I’m not saying that’s impossible.
I am saying Hillary Clinton has a better chance at being elected than Palin, and they have similar, though complementary, polarizing effects.
Make of that what you will.
I’m not going to say it’s impossible either. I’m going to say it’s damn near impossible and that incredibly thin sliver of possibility is a little terrifying.
I don’t think Palin is quitting. Sure she’s leaving one specific job, but only to transition into something else. She isn’t leaving politics. Does she have her eyes set on the presidency? Probably so. Does it really matter right now? Nope, I don’t think so. Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. As for the debate over Palin’s intelligence, people are rarely as smart as they think they are. If you’re calling her dumb or whatever, take a step back and examine yourself. If you think you are better, please run for office. I’m sure you think America would be blessed to have you as a leader.
It’s funny, they say she’s going to run for president in 2012. 2012 is the year supposedly the world’s going to end… see a connection?
Not really…