Palin Quitting

oldsaw wrote: ...... I rather hope she maintains a political presence, embarrasses the elitists who helped naunce a liar (and his bumbling stooge) into office, and makes a ton money doing it.

Too Late.

W is already out of office.

And what exactly is the definition of an "elitist"?

aeronca65t wrote:

oldsaw wrote: ...... I rather hope she maintains a political presence, embarrasses the elitists who helped naunce a liar (and his bumbling stooge) into office, and makes a ton money doing it.

Too Late. W is already out of office. And what exactly is the definition of an "elitist"?

Good one!

But two wrongs (including the current HMIC) do not make a right.

Here's your definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist

But you already knew that.

aeronca65t wrote: And what exactly is the definition of an "elitist"?

Someone who chooses fancy mustard over ketchup on their hamburger.

oldsaw, I agree with your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

Ann Richards was "folksy", a Governor, had no foreign policy experience and the press fawned over her.

Because she's a Democrat or she doesn't dress like a "slutty alir flight attendant"?

z31maniac wrote: ....I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

First of all, she is a politician, and almost by definition they are ALL "lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3's". (yes, amazingly, this is not an isolated characteristic), that's how they get where the are (generally).

Being "folksy" is not a crime, but it does come off as a bit "dufusy", and unprofessional to many people. I guess you could relate it to if there was a politician who came from an urban area who spoke "street". It would be how he normally speaks when at home, but would come off pretty lame and unprofessional to others.

WHEEEEEE, political threads are back!!! Personally, I'm glad we have Thee Uh-bama in office. He's the berkeleying genius who's going to "fix" healthcare...whether we like it or not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno

poopshovel wrote: WHEEEEEE, political threads are back!!! Personally, I'm glad we have Thee Uh-bama in office. He's the berkeleying genius who's going to "fix" healthcare...whether we like it or not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno

Could be, but you still should stay with the subject.

914Driver wrote:

poopshovel wrote: WHEEEEEE, political threads are back!!! Personally, I'm glad we have Thee Uh-bama in office. He's the berkeleying genius who's going to "fix" healthcare...whether we like it or not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno

Could be, but you still should stay with the subject.

Okee dokee. To those still confused as to how Palin got such a bad rap, ask your average Obama voter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

I'm having a hard time believing that anyone thinks she is qualified to run the United States. When the going gets tough, the tough....quit?

aircooled wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ....I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

First of all, she is a politician, and almost by definition they are ALL "lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3's". (yes, amazingly, this is not an isolated characteristic), that's how they get where the are (generally). Being "folksy" is not a crime, but it does come off as a bit "dufusy", and unprofessional to many people. I guess you could relate it to if there was a politician who came from an urban area who spoke "street". It would be how he normally speaks when at home, but would come off pretty lame and unprofessional to others.

Many people between the urban (and predominantly "progressive") coastal corridors speak in a "folksy" manner. That doesn't lessen their professionalism or intellect, unless one has a pre-deliction to believe it so.

I'd endorse an urban politician who spoke "street" while professing libertarian/conservative values.

Do any exist?

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ....I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

First of all, she is a politician, and almost by definition they are ALL "lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3's". (yes, amazingly, this is not an isolated characteristic), that's how they get where the are (generally). Being "folksy" is not a crime, but it does come off as a bit "dufusy", and unprofessional to many people. I guess you could relate it to if there was a politician who came from an urban area who spoke "street". It would be how he normally speaks when at home, but would come off pretty lame and unprofessional to others.

Many people between the urban (and predominantly "progressive") coastal corridors speak in a "folksy" manner. That doesn't lessen their professionalism or intellect, unless one has a pre-deliction to believe it so. I'd endorse an urban politician who spoke "street" while professing libertarian/conservative values. Do any exist?

http://www.hermancain.com/

Herman Cain can get a little "street-y" sometimes when he gets whipped into a frenzy. I voted him for Governor a few years ago - and I'll take genuine "folksy" over Thee Obama's poor Bill Clinton impression any day.

poopshovel wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ....I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

First of all, she is a politician, and almost by definition they are ALL "lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3's". (yes, amazingly, this is not an isolated characteristic), that's how they get where the are (generally). Being "folksy" is not a crime, but it does come off as a bit "dufusy", and unprofessional to many people. I guess you could relate it to if there was a politician who came from an urban area who spoke "street". It would be how he normally speaks when at home, but would come off pretty lame and unprofessional to others.

Many people between the urban (and predominantly "progressive") coastal corridors speak in a "folksy" manner. That doesn't lessen their professionalism or intellect, unless one has a pre-deliction to believe it so. I'd endorse an urban politician who spoke "street" while professing libertarian/conservative values. Do any exist?

http://www.hermancain.com/ Herman Cain can get a little "street-y" sometimes when he gets whipped into a frenzy. I voted him for Governor a few years ago - and I'll take genuine "folksy" over Thee Obama's poor Bill Clinton impression any day.

I love the Hermanator!

Even better, he uses the "stop" function (when his callers resort to ad hominem attacks and try to associate him with the pile that is referred to as "Republicans") with great effect.

That man is a treasure.

I thought she just got lambasted because she combines the ethics of Bill, the aggressive unlikability of Hillary, the inexperience of Obama and the jingoistic cowboy mentality of Bush all in one unintelligible (albeit somewhat attractive) form.

But maybe I missed something.

Tim Baxter wrote: I thought she just got lambasted because she combines the ethics of Bill, the aggressive unlikability of Hillary, the inexperience of Obama and the jingoistic cowboy mentality of Bush all in one unintelligible (albeit somewhat attractive) form. But maybe I missed something.

good synopsis.. But you forgot the crazy morals of Jerry Fallwell.

There are plenty of reasons to lambast Palin. Most she's brought upon herself. To say she's blameless in this is to look at the situation with blinders on.

The subterfuge in this thread is great. "Palin ain't that bad. Look at Obama!" Not the subject we're discussing but a good tactic to use while defending the indefensible. It would seem that intelligence and knowledge isn't a prerequisite to being a Republican super star. The important part of being a Republican demagogue is to take stands that follow the party line no matter how asinine or illogical they may seem. If you value privacy, freedom to make your own decisions, and intelligent/wise leadership she's not the one you want.

The true victim is the American moderate. Define the moderate as you like but when both parties are extremes there really isn't a good choice.

I totally agree but the American fiscal conservative is also a victim.

The "supposedly" conservative Republican party (which it really isn't) has wildly intermixed fiscal conservative with religious conservative (some will say social, but let's face it, its religious).

I REALLY wish there was a way to eliminate the party system, it really is horrible. It reminds me of some gigantic stupid Survivor game!

In reply to Xceler8x:

Did she deserve this treatment (last year) when Biden takes the same position this year/week?

Excerpt taken from WSJ's "Best of the Web Today" column:

.By JAMES TARANTO Over the weekend, as we noted yesterday, Vice President Biden said that if Israel decides it needs to take military action against the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, the U.S. will not "dictate" otherwise. A reader points out that Sarah Palin, who ran against Biden in last year's election, said much the same thing in a September interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson:

Gibson: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Palin: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Gibson: So if we wouldn't second-guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

Palin: I don't think we can second-guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

Gibson: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

Palin: We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Palin reiterated the point in a later interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

.This column agrees with both Biden and Palin and is glad to see that the bipartisan consensus recognizing Israel's right to defend itself appears sturdy. But we suspected not everyone would be so consistent, so we went back to see what people had said about Palin.

Matthew Yglesias, who when he was young drew much praise for his thoughtful and fair-minded commentary, wrote a blog post titled "Palin: If Israel Wants to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, That's Okay With Me":

Palin reiterated her absurd view that the President of the United States shouldn't "second-guess" Israeli policy under any circumstances. Palin is okay at repeating various "pro-Israel" buzzwords, but she can't run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid. So when Biden said the same thing, did Yglesias call it "absurd" and "stupid"? Well, is the pope Italian? Here's what he wrote yesterday:

This is being read by some . . . as a "green light" for an Israeli attack. . . . I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he's trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn't do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.

The main problem with this, I think, is that probably nobody's going to believe it. Already you see many Americans taking Biden's statement that the U.S. doesn't control Israeli policy to "really" mean that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to attack. When Palin says it, it's stupid. When Biden says it, he gets graded on a curve: The problem is that other people are too stupid to understand the deep subtlety of Biden's thinking.

Then there's M.J. Rosenberg of TalkingPointsMemo.com. In September, he described Palin as "robotic" and suggested that she is the puppet of a Jewish cabal:

Now we know why among the very first people Sarah Palin sat down with after being nominated was Joe Lieberman and the head of AIPAC. She needed the latest talking points and, boy, did she learn her lines. . . . In other words, under the Palin administration, we won't second guess Israel. I think I've got it. Palin sure has.

And when Biden said it? Rosenberg kept mum until he was persuaded that the vice president's words didn't really reflect U.S. policy. Then he wrote this:

The President said today that he has "absolutely not" given Israel a "green light" to attack Iran.

So Biden either misspoke, was misinterpreted, or has just been corrected by his boss. Israel will get no green light to attack. We will, as Obama said all along, rely on diplomacy to solve the Iran problem.

Fair enough, right? Wrong. Look what Palin said to Charlie Gibson just before he asked about a hypothetical Israeli strike:

Gibson: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

Palin: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

Gibson: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.

Palin: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

What Palin said last year was precisely what Obama and Biden have now said: Diplomacy is the optimal way of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat, but if it fails, Israel has a right to defend itself. In a way, the inconsistency of some of Palin's critics is reassuring. It shows that a good deal of anti-Israel sentiment is mere partisanship masquerading as something uglier.

Full (opinion) article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699072588807121.html

The double standards that exist in the media (and sometimes on this board) offer no surprises.

oldsaw wrote: The double standards that exist in the media (and sometimes on this board) offer no surprises.

Really?

If she's a victim of anything, she's a victim of her own bullheadidness. She didn't want to take the advice of others and was too stupid to admit she was wrong for doing it.

Personally, She's an idiot. Now can we go back to laughing at these idiots who are going to T-bag parties.

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: The double standards that exist in the media (and sometimes on this board) offer no surprises.

Really? If she's a victim of anything, she's a victim of her own bullheadidness. She didn't want to take the advice of others and was too stupid to admit she was wrong for doing it. Personally, She's an idiot. Now can we go back to laughing at these idiots who are going to T-bag parties.

REALLY!

McCain "bucked the sytem" and was lauded as a maverick but Palin is labelled as "bullheaded"? McCain ignored the advice and gets a pass, while Palin doesn't?

Thanks for helping make the point!

In 1773, those with your convictions may have been in the mainstream. In 1776, those with your convictions would have been labeled as "Tories" - i.e., those who sided with an oppressive government that did not represent the will of the people.

Frankly, I'll side with the idiots on this issue.

z31maniac wrote: oldsaw, I agree with your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I've never understood why she gets lambasted by everyone either. I didn't realize being a "folksy" was worse than being a lying, cheating corrupt piece of E36 M3.

I personally never thought she was worse than bush...not much better, but not worse.

Joey

oldsaw wrote: McCain "bucked the sytem" and was lauded as a maverick but Palin is labelled as "bullheaded"? McCain ignored the advice and gets a pass, while Palin doesn't?

Maybe I'm stoooopid, but infighting during the middle of a going campaign doesn't seem like the basis for a solid working relationship. My point was that Palin ignored advice from MCAIN and his advisors.....

In the real job world, you take your bosses priorities as your own, otherwise your career is very short. Idiot.

oldsaw wrote: In 1773, those with your convictions may have been in the mainstream. In 1776, those with your convictions would have been labeled as "Tories" - i.e., those who sided with an oppressive government that did not represent the will of the people.

Ohh and Don't start pulling stuff like this. It can be argued that the american revolution was started by the "elite" business class of the day while the poor farmer was just swept up in it all. Maybe it was an elitist revolution?

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: McCain "bucked the sytem" and was lauded as a maverick but Palin is labelled as "bullheaded"? McCain ignored the advice and gets a pass, while Palin doesn't?

Maybe I'm stoooopid, but infighting during the middle of a going campaign doesn't seem like the basis for a solid working relationship. My point was that Palin ignored advice from MCAIN and his advisors..... In the real job world, you take your bosses priorities as your own, otherwise your career is very short. Idiot.

McCain's campaign was doomed from the beginning because he was:

1) A Republican when the brand's reputation had been tarnished beyond recognition.

2) A "maverick" who received accolades from his opposition and derision from the heart-felt "base".

3) Posturing himself as an Obama-lite alternative without credentials, guts or charisma to appeal to those in the "middle".

McCain did enough to (possibly) ensure himself re-election(s) to the Senate, but nothing to advance a conservative agenda. He lost the election and his handlers (along with others) want to blame Palin to deflect attention from their own failure.

The stoopid part was that McCain chose a VP candidate that embodied a conservative appeal far greater than he (McCain) could, and he failed to capitalize.

Palin (after the election) chose to do what (to her) is the right thing for her family, state, and (maybe, even) her country. More power to her.

I can't help but admire someone who says F/U to a F/Upped system and chooses their own path, whether or not it leads to obscurity or something "greater".

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In 1773, those with your convictions may have been in the mainstream. In 1776, those with your convictions would have been labeled as "Tories" - i.e., those who sided with an oppressive government that did not represent the will of the people.

Ohh and Don't start pulling stuff like this. It can be argued that the american revolution was started by the "elite" business class of the day while the poor farmer was just swept up in it all. Maybe it was an elitist revolution?

So, what if was an "elitist revolution"?

It also provided the foundation and frame-work for the greatest expansion of free-enterprise and opportunity for people to at least try to achieve their dreams.

Some excel, some fail, and most fall somewhere between the extremes.

How, exactly, is that a bad thing?