Palin Quitting

sometimes I wonder what kind of different world we would have lived in if McCain has gotten the nomination for the 2000 election..

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.

I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for Obama. I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for GWB. I have a hard time understanding the vehement malicious hatred that Sarah Palin evokes in a lot of Democrats. All I can come up with is that Charlie Gibson, Crunty Couric, Tina Fey, and Joy berkeleying Behar told people to hate her, and they listened. So we hear stuff like:

The only reason Palin should ever get inside the White House would be to clean the toliets.

poopshovel wrote: I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for Obama. I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for GWB. I have a hard time understanding the vehement malicious hatred that Sarah Palin evokes in a lot of Democrats. All I can come up with is that Charlie Gibson, Crunty Couric, Tina Fey, and Joy berkeleying Behar told people to hate her, and they listened. So we hear stuff like:

She does evoke a lot of strong feelings for an "also ran" doesn't she?

I think a lot of the ill will towards her stems from her appearing to be preachy. "Don't comment on my family in the media! By the way here is my newborn who has down's syndrome for a photo op."

She comes across as ill informed. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008

Preaching abstinence only education and having her own daughter exhibit how well it works in the real world.

Appearing to be crooked by accepting cash for living away from her home while she is, in fact, living in her home in Juneau. Palin Faces New Ethics Complaint Over Reimbursements

Seeming to advocate smaller government all while advocating more government control over private lives by over turning Roe v. Wade. The typical hypocritical stance of conservatives today that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Along the same lines as being against abortion but pro death penalty. The inconsistency in moral stands is astounding. Either you're for killing people or you ain't.

She also talks like someone who is woefully ignorant of the basics of how our government works. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008

I could go on and on but there really isn't any reason anymore.

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

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

We aren't talking about the Revolution or McCain's campaign here. Last I checked this thread was about Palin. Good attempt at a distraction.

One more log for the fire:

"I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=

Xceler8x 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. Frankly, I'll side with the idiots on this issue.

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

We aren't talking about the Revolution or McCain's campaign here. Last I checked this thread was about Palin. Good attempt at a distraction.

Thanks for the ruling, Ref!

Now, read the above (^) article and you'll see we're back on topic.

Xceler8x wrote: Seeming to advocate smaller government all while advocating more government control over private lives by over turning Roe v. Wade. The typical hypocritical stance of conservatives today that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Along the same lines as being against abortion but pro death penalty. The inconsistency in moral stands is astounding. Either you're for killing people or you ain't.

I don't want to derail this into an abortion debate, but there isn't an inconsistency here. Some people deserve killin. Babies aren't on that list. No moral inconsistency.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Seeming to advocate smaller government all while advocating more government control over private lives by over turning Roe v. Wade. The typical hypocritical stance of conservatives today that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Along the same lines as being against abortion but pro death penalty. The inconsistency in moral stands is astounding. Either you're for killing people or you ain't.

I don't want to derail this into an abortion debate, but there isn't an inconsistency here. Some people deserve killin. Babies aren't on that list. No moral inconsistency.

His intentions were honest, Dave. It was just a "Good attempt at a distraction"!

oldsaw wrote: Thanks for the ruling, Ref! Now, read the above (^) article and you'll see we're back on topic.

I'm blowing the whistle here!

DILYSI Dave wrote: I don't want to derail this into an abortion debate, but there isn't an inconsistency here. Some people deserve killin. Babies aren't on that list. No moral inconsistency.

1 out of 6 ain't bad.

..actually...nah. I could address that but OldSaw said we were/are talking about Palin. I'm listening to him.

No distractions here. Quick! Look over there.

Letterman said: "Was it something I said?"

Xceler8x wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for Obama. I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for GWB. I have a hard time understanding the vehement malicious hatred that Sarah Palin evokes in a lot of Democrats. All I can come up with is that Charlie Gibson, Crunty Couric, Tina Fey, and Joy berkeleying Behar told people to hate her, and they listened. So we hear stuff like:

She does evoke a lot of strong feelings for an "also ran" doesn't she? I think a lot of the ill will towards her stems from her appearing to be preachy. "Don't comment on my family in the media! By the way here is my newborn who has down's syndrome for a photo op." She comes across as ill informed. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 Preaching abstinence only education and having her own daughter exhibit how well it works in the real world. Appearing to be crooked by accepting cash for living away from her home while she is, in fact, living in her home in Juneau. Palin Faces New Ethics Complaint Over Reimbursements Seeming to advocate smaller government all while advocating more government control over private lives by over turning Roe v. Wade. The typical hypocritical stance of conservatives today that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Along the same lines as being against abortion but pro death penalty. The inconsistency in moral stands is astounding. Either you're for killing people or you ain't. She also talks like someone who is woefully ignorant of the basics of how our government works. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 I could go on and on but there really isn't any reason anymore.

This is a great post, it explicitly summarizes the OP's point without being hateful/editorializing/etc.

However, as said before, if these are your reasons to bash Palin, ie being preachy, ill-informed, out of touch, crooked and hypocritical without a true understanding of the role of government..............

I would go out on a limb and say that ALL POLITICIANS should be thoroughly bashed as well.

Let it be known that I'm hardly endorsing Palin/McCain/Conservatives. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal like most, to me it's a contradiction in terms that Conservatives claim to want smaller gov't involvement in people's personal life unless it's morally opposed to their Christian "values."

Just curious why the other politicans don't get nailed for thier short comings......

I digress....

z31maniac wrote: Just curious why the other politicans don't get nailed for thier short comings......

I think most of it was that first big interview.... it was really really bad. She came off as a blithering idiot. I am sure normally even very dull politicians are heavily prepped for such things, but somehow this one slipped through.

If you can find that interview, really, its very bad. If an maniacal sounding scream can ruin a candidates chances instantly, she should have been tossed on the pile right after that interview.

z31maniac wrote:

Xceler8x wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for Obama. I can understand legitimate, justified hatred for GWB. I have a hard time understanding the vehement malicious hatred that Sarah Palin evokes in a lot of Democrats. All I can come up with is that Charlie Gibson, Crunty Couric, Tina Fey, and Joy berkeleying Behar told people to hate her, and they listened. So we hear stuff like:

She does evoke a lot of strong feelings for an "also ran" doesn't she? I think a lot of the ill will towards her stems from her appearing to be preachy. "Don't comment on my family in the media! By the way here is my newborn who has down's syndrome for a photo op." She comes across as ill informed. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 Preaching abstinence only education and having her own daughter exhibit how well it works in the real world. Appearing to be crooked by accepting cash for living away from her home while she is, in fact, living in her home in Juneau. Palin Faces New Ethics Complaint Over Reimbursements Seeming to advocate smaller government all while advocating more government control over private lives by over turning Roe v. Wade. The typical hypocritical stance of conservatives today that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Along the same lines as being against abortion but pro death penalty. The inconsistency in moral stands is astounding. Either you're for killing people or you ain't. She also talks like someone who is woefully ignorant of the basics of how our government works. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 I could go on and on but there really isn't any reason anymore.

This is a great post, it explicitly summarizes the OP's point without being hateful/editorializing/etc. However, as said before, if these are your reasons to bash Palin, ie being preachy, ill-informed, out of touch, crooked and hypocritical without a true understanding of the role of government.............. I would go out on a limb and say that ALL POLITICIANS should be thoroughly bashed as well. Let it be known that I'm hardly endorsing Palin/McCain/Conservatives. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal like most, to me it's a contradiction in terms that Conservatives claim to want smaller gov't involvement in people's personal life unless it's morally opposed to their Christian "values." Just curious why the other politicans don't get nailed for thier short comings...... I digress....

I, too, am fiscally conservative and socially liberal and wholeheartedly agree with your premise that ALL politicians deserve equal treatment.

The disparity in how politicians (like Palin, for example) are treated is the crux of the issue. She was different and did nothing to hide how she stood on issues. An ill-fated (and skillfully edited) interview later and she's a laughing-stock - no second chances for her.

What might have occurred if the network media had run with Obama's "Joe the Plumber" moment with the same vitriol and intensity as Palin received? That moment defined his true feelings (at complete odds with founding-father philosophy) and was virtually ignored.

Back on topic, before the referee blows the whistle again!

Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

BTW, the latest ethics complaint against complaint Palin concerns five days (at $60.00 per day) where she governed from her home in Wasilla, not the capitol of Juneau.

Link:http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2009/07/zane-henning-files-his-second-ethics.html

Also, using Roe v Wade as an example of conservative hypocrisy is ill-founded. Conservatives and Libertarians truly advocate a smaller Federal government.

But, the Feds intervened and superceded existing state abortion laws by imposing Roe v Wade. Normally such a radical change in applying law requires going through the ratification process, which was ignored and allowed MORE government intrusion on individuals.

I'm not a Constituional scholar, so anyone with better take on the issue, please correct me if I'm wrong. And can we leave the "right to life" issue for another thread?

Gotta go! The ref's lifting the whistle to his lips again.

oldsaw wrote: The disparity in how politicians (like Palin, for example) are treated is the crux of the issue. She was different and did nothing to hide how she stood on issues. An ill-fated (and skillfully edited) interview later and she's a laughing-stock - no second chances for her.

Was it really edited or was she really that clueless? I'm leaning on clueless as it wasn't just that one interview where she showed a complete, utter, and arguably dangerous lack of understanding in how government works.

But hey, it's my opinion. Worth about as much as chevrolet stock. ;)

Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

They are, all in turn. Do you really think she's been treated differently in the level of media scrutiny? If so Fox news better step it up and start balancing the field. They have just as much access, and more in the last 8 years, as any other media organization. I'm throwing Fox in there as I'm getting a wiff of the old "Demon Liberal Media" argument. Which is funny because the only guys who trot out that dead horse are the conservative commentators striving to create their own reality. The typical stance being "The media isn't reporting what I want to hear so I'm going to say they're biased."

CRAP! Thread ref is calling a 10 sentence penalty for going off topic!

aircooled wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Just curious why the other politicans don't get nailed for thier short comings......

I think most of it was that first big interview.... it was really really bad. She came off as a blithering idiot. I am sure normally even very dull politicians are heavily prepped for such things, but somehow this one slipped through. If you can find that interview, really, its very bad. If an maniacal sounding scream can ruin a candidates chances instantly, she should have been tossed on the pile right after that interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyr2pNMbT4

oldsaw wrote: Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

I don't buy this as an excuse one bit. It was tough so she quit.

So can we extrapolate this? Hmm.. Nixon? Any parallels?

poopshovel wrote:

aircooled wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Just curious why the other politicans don't get nailed for thier short comings......

I think most of it was that first big interview.... it was really really bad. She came off as a blithering idiot. I am sure normally even very dull politicians are heavily prepped for such things, but somehow this one slipped through. If you can find that interview, really, its very bad. If an maniacal sounding scream can ruin a candidates chances instantly, she should have been tossed on the pile right after that interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyr2pNMbT4

I'll take the gaffe machine over this:

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

"I can see russia from my house"

ignorant wrote: I'll take the gaffe machine over this: "I can see russia from my house"

'Cept Palin didn't say that. Tina Fey did on SNL. Funny how a mean-spirited impression from a second-rate comic from a show way past its prime ends up as the most memorable quote of the 2008 campaign.

Palin DID say (paraphrasing here) that there is an island in the Bering Strait where you can see Russian territory (Little Diomede and Big Diomede, forget which belongs to who) and she is of course correct.

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

I don't buy this as an excuse one bit. It was tough so she quit. So can we extrapolate this? Hmm.. Nixon? Any parallels?

You don't have to buy any excuse; it's not far sale.

Yeah, it was tough and she quit. Name another politician who has been subjected to a similar level of criticism when not facing criminal charges.

The Nixon reference = FAIL. The investigations compiled evidence that would have led to an indictment, trial and conviction on a number of charges. He quit to avoid the prolonged, national agony that Watergate had burdened the country with - along with that prosecution problem, too. Were you even alive during that era?

Unless you have more evidence than the FBI, your attempt to link Nixon's and Palin's resignations is, at least, a low blow.

But not unexpected.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: The disparity in how politicians (like Palin, for example) are treated is the crux of the issue. She was different and did nothing to hide how she stood on issues. An ill-fated (and skillfully edited) interview later and she's a laughing-stock - no second chances for her.

Was it really edited or was she really that clueless? I'm leaning on clueless as it wasn't just that one interview where she showed a complete, utter, and arguably dangerous lack of understanding in how government works. But hey, it's my opinion. Worth about as much as chevrolet stock. ;)

Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

They are, all in turn. Do you really think she's been treated differently in the level of media scrutiny? If so Fox news better step it up and start balancing the field. They have just as much access, and more in the last 8 years, as any other media organization. I'm throwing Fox in there as I'm getting a wiff of the old "Demon Liberal Media" argument. Which is funny because the only guys who trot out that dead horse are the conservative commentators striving to create their own reality. The typical stance being "The media isn't reporting what I want to hear so I'm going to say they're biased." CRAP! Thread ref is calling a 10 sentence penalty for going off topic!

Indeed, all politicians have equal opportunities for media scrutiny.

The question is whether, or not, that scrutiny is applied evenly, or if criticism is tempered because one candidate's/politician's views are supported or disapproved by the presenter.

If you catch that "media bias" whiff, maybe it's because the stench is there. Perhaps it's not realized for the same reason that a fish doesn't know it's wet?

BTW, the only worthy Fox show worth consuming is Special Report w/ Brett Baier. Virtually all the others are commentary shows, for which I have little tolerance. But, for one to decry Fox's "conservative" bias ignores the void that other media outlets have created because of their own biased tendencies.

If the thread ref wants to throw a flag, I'll willingly take the penalty.

You gonna make me watch "The View" for week?

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

I don't buy this as an excuse one bit. It was tough so she quit. So can we extrapolate this? Hmm.. Nixon? Any parallels?

You don't have to buy any excuse; it's not far sale. Yeah, it was tough and she quit. Name another politician who has been subjected to a similar level of criticism when not facing criminal charges. The Nixon reference = FAIL. The investigations compiled evidence that would have led to an indictment, trial and conviction on a number of charges. He quit to avoid the prolonged, national agony that Watergate had burdened the country with - along with that prosecution problem, too. Were you even alive during that era? Unless you have more evidence than the FBI, your attempt to link Nixon's and Palin's resignations is, at least, a low blow. But not unexpected.

I believe he was talking about Nixon after losing the Calif. Governor's race in 1962. "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Were you even alive during that era?

2002acr wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

I don't buy this as an excuse one bit. It was tough so she quit. So can we extrapolate this? Hmm.. Nixon? Any parallels?

You don't have to buy any excuse; it's not far sale. Yeah, it was tough and she quit. Name another politician who has been subjected to a similar level of criticism when not facing criminal charges. The Nixon reference = FAIL. The investigations compiled evidence that would have led to an indictment, trial and conviction on a number of charges. He quit to avoid the prolonged, national agony that Watergate had burdened the country with - along with that prosecution problem, too. Were you even alive during that era? Unless you have more evidence than the FBI, your attempt to link Nixon's and Palin's resignations is, at least, a low blow. But not unexpected.

I believe he was talking about Nixon after losing the Calif. Governor's race in 1962. "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Were you even alive during that era?

Good point!

Yes, I was very much alive during that era. And he also made a come-back that led to the White House.

Now, it's up to Palin and the public (not pundits) to see what happens in the future - as it was with Nixon.

Hey Ig, if I jumped on the wrong reference, I forward my apologies; with a request that you make your references less obtuse.

2002acr wrote: I believe he was talking about Nixon after losing the Calif. Governor's race in 1962. "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Were you even alive during that era?

It was an extrapolation of what could happen if she got into office and had some major pressure put upon her. No reference to what they actually did or didn't do was implied. More of a What if....

To look at other parrellels.. Clinton in the middle of his craziness didn't quit. When everyone was point massive fingers at bush about his record in the airforce, his drinking, and his crazy daugthers He didn't quit.

Hell Sanford still hasn't given up. The she was under extreme pressure agrument dosen't hold up. The girl dosen't have any stones and it now shows.

oldsaw wrote:

2002acr wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Had any other politician been inundated with the same scrutiny (as Palin), there's just as good a chance said politician would have done the same.

I don't buy this as an excuse one bit. It was tough so she quit. So can we extrapolate this? Hmm.. Nixon? Any parallels?

You don't have to buy any excuse; it's not far sale. Yeah, it was tough and she quit. Name another politician who has been subjected to a similar level of criticism when not facing criminal charges. The Nixon reference = FAIL. The investigations compiled evidence that would have led to an indictment, trial and conviction on a number of charges. He quit to avoid the prolonged, national agony that Watergate had burdened the country with - along with that prosecution problem, too. Were you even alive during that era? Unless you have more evidence than the FBI, your attempt to link Nixon's and Palin's resignations is, at least, a low blow. But not unexpected.

I believe he was talking about Nixon after losing the Calif. Governor's race in 1962. "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Were you even alive during that era?

Good point! Yes, I was very much alive during that era. And he also made a come-back that led to the White House. Now, it's up to Palin and the public (not pundits) to see what happens in the future - as it was with Nixon. Hey Ig, if I jumped on the wrong reference, I forward my apologies; with a request that you make your references less obtuse.

Wasn't my reference but I knew what ignorant meant. It did lead to a big comeback. Let's take the Palin announcement at face value, it was a horrible speech, (objective criticism) and she appears to be a thin-skinned quitter (subjective criticism). I am not a fan of hers but I feel she is not going away. She is done in Alaska though.