Why Did Sarah Palin Resign as Governor?

[D H]

Not really, depends on the newspaper you read or the TV news you watch. There has been air time about North Korea and Iran. Not so much the airplane crash if you are referring to the Yemeni Airline demise.

I was alluding to CNN, which used to be good. Now it appears to be worse than Fox. CNN became the 24/7 Michael Jackson network last week, with an occasional side news story.

The only reason Palin garnered so much media attention is because she is yet another media personality who has done something scandalous. Even though she has nice legs, this story doesn't. CNN can return (and already has returned) to being the 24/7 Michael Jackson network.

 

[GeorginaS]

Mr. Jackson's memorial ceremony is next Tuesday. That ought to dominate the news cycle once again. (It's times like this I'm so very glad I don't watch television news.)

As for Palin, an article on Slate offers the most reasonable explanation I've read so far

The larger reason for Palin's early departure was that she was having no fun. Ever since she returned to Alaska from the national stage, being governor has been a chore. Her political opponents have launched 15 ethics charges against her. The state economy has turned sour, and she got into an ugly squabble over federal stimulus funds. It's much more enjoyable to travel the country waving to adoring crowds of GOP activists.

So Palin decided to chuck her office for the limelight.
She can now tour the country as the only superstar in a party that desperately needs one. Because she can pack bleachers, she can raise money. In addition to boosting party morale and filling its coffers (and her own), she can build relationships nationwide that will be crucial if she really is interested in running for national office again.



http://www.slate.com/id/2222221/"

Having watched a bit of her speech, though, I must say, the Couric interviews were not an anomaly, rather, when the woman actually follows a cogent line of thought is out of the norm. She needs speech writers. And coaches.

Edited to repair screwed up quote.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Bush and his friends squandered wealth.

Fiscal conservatives criticized the Bush administration very much on this.

Obama is taking drastic action needed to save the economy

Depends; the stimulus was one thing, but he has been planning spend enormous amounts of money from the get-go. And I think he is nuts if he thinks his carbon cap-and-trade bill is going to help the economy and actually create jobs.

When you are all the way right, everything looks left.

Or one could easily say when you're over to the left, anything else looks to the "Right."
The Right is ultimately about freedom. Anything that infringes upon freedom is a variant of the Left. What many call a "moderate" is perhaps a Republican that believes in social programs, or "doing good with other people's money." Only this is a farce, because in order to get that money, you have to take it from the people. In other words, almost anything that calls for redistribution of wealth, social programs, etc...is grounded ultimately in violence and coercion and infringing on freedom at its core.

Many liberals believe in God as well. No problem; it is a classic mistake made by Republicans.

I never said leftists do not believe in god. Barack Obama believes in god.

The difference is that they don't try to put religious extremists in power.

Yes they do, just their religion is government and the environment. This whole carbon cap-and-trade nonsense is a ramming of religion down this country's throat. It is based on a theory that is completely unproven. We do not know if the Earth is warming conclusively. We do not know if warming will be bad if it is occurring. We do not know, if warming is occurring, if it is from the Earth itself, influence from the sun, or humans, and so forth.

Or like when Nancy Pelosi said in a Vogue interview, "I view my role in government as an extension of my role as a mother." In other words, she's a tyrant technically, she believes the people are sheep that need a big, maternal government run by the likes of her to look after them.

A loving embrace from which one cannot escape is still a form of tyranny remember. This is completely opposite of the conservative view, which is that the people are the adults, and the government is like putting your sixteen year-old in charge of the family finances. If you don't watch them closely, they'll spend extraordinary amounts of money, then when you try to criticize them and reign them in, they'll act offended and tell you they know better, even though you're the one making the money.

It is a result of fear and 40 years of Republican denials and obfuscations.

Environmentalism as religion is nothing new. The Nazis held an almost religious view of the environment, and the environmental zealots who want to control everything everyone can do are neo-Nazi in their worldview.

In the religious variant of environmentalism, you have the period of peace, in which humans lived in harmony with nature (akin to Adam and Eve), then you have the first sins, when humans started manipulating nature to their own benefit (akin to eating of the fruit), then you have the coming doomsday in which Nature will go haywire and we will all be destroyed and die for our sins against the Earth (akin to Revelations).

We talk about Charles Manson too, but that doesn't mean he is popular.

Palin is very popular though. That's why she is such a threat to the Left. Otherwise, no one would care about her.

Apparently when she was a would-be vice President. The fact is that to most of us, Palin is a joke,

Yes, and you're wrong. Palin is no joke. Don't let your ideology rule your thinking. She is far too intelligent and too much of a threat to be any joke to the left. Now a guy like Biden, he is a joke. He actually still has Presidential aspirations. He is actually naive enough to think the Democrats would make him a front-runner. Barack Obama was also easily a joke in terms of knowledge of the issues; he was not any joke however as a candidate who stood a good chance of being elected.

Having watched a bit of her speech, though, I must say, the Couric interviews were not an anomaly, rather, when the woman actually follows a cogent line of thought is out of the norm. She needs speech writers. And coaches.

I wouldn't make fun of anyone's speaking ability right now when we have a President who cannot speak without a Tele-Prompter and a Vice President who seems to make a gaffe per week when speaking.

 

[cristo]

The Right is ultimately about freedom.

Freedom? So conservatives allow freedom of choice; they would support same sex marriages, for example?

Yes, and you're wrong. Palin is no joke.

I think the rest of the world would disagree!

 

[WheelsRCool]

Freedom? So conservatives allow freedom of choice; they would support same sex marriages, for example?

Yes, they should. That is mostly ones wanting to put religion on people. They make concerns over saying this opens the can of worms up to men being able to marry boys and so forth, like NAMBLA, and perhaps with the hardcore left that is a concern, but overall I do not see that. Children are not adults. Two consenting adults I wouldn't care if they are gay, straight, whatever if they want to marry.

Of course an issue here and there that the Republicans want to control, that automatically makes them the party of tyranny.

When the left want to tax, regulate, and control every aspect of our lives for the most part, they are somehow the "liberals."

What separates a "conservative" from a "liberal" is that the philosophy overall of the conservative promotes freedom.

Limited government, low taxes, free trade, etc...promotes freedom. If you get some ultra-religious John Hagee type in office who wants to ram religion down people's throats, they have to go against their own philosophy overall if they claim to be a conservative.

OR, if they do not, and the people do not like their policies, they get voted out of office, because government lacks authority.

With the "liberals," it is just the opposite. Their philosophy, no matter how much they may believe in freedom or claim to, works fundamentally against it. One cannot believe in and support big government, and then expect a people to remain free because it is in the inherent design of government to always grow and grow and to infringe on freedoms more and more.

With a leftist government that is big and powerful, if they start enacting laws and controls you don't like, you may not be able to vote them out of power. They are too large, have too many government agencies, and so forth.

I think the rest of the world would disagree!

This means nothing. What the "rest of the world thinks" means little. All that matters are what the facts are.

The fact is she is a leftist's worst nightmare.
-She is highly intelligent.
-She is charismatic.
-She triangulates them on identity politics.
-She is immune from attacks on the abortion issue.
-She can really mobilize the base, along with attract moderates.

Such a person is not a joke, even if you completely disagree with her policies (of which I have never really heard any articulate arguments against the types of policies she stands for on paper, just namecalling, that seems the only attack method the left has).

 

[cristo]

Yes, they should.

So, using your definition, Republicans are not conservatives...

-She is highly intelligent.

That's a joke, right?

-She is charismatic.

That's not an objective statement.

-She is immune from attacks on the abortion issue.

Why? Because she flat out refuses to budge from what "god" apparently wants her to do or think?

Such a person is not a joke

Well, she certainly made me, and most of the people I know, laugh out loud. What's the definition of a joke again?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The fact is she is a leftist's worst nightmare.
-She is highly intelligent.
-She is charismatic.
-She triangulates them on identity politics.
-She is immune from attacks on the abortion issue.
-She can really mobilize the base, along with attract moderates.

1. Haven't seen any evidence of this myself. I cringed every time I heard her speak.

2. I've seen plenty of ditzy women that could get a crowd, not many of them that were ever elected to anything other than prom queen.

3. You mean because she's a woman? Condoleeza Rice is both female and black and has a terrible reputation to live down.

4. Because she had herself a baby with down syndrome? I still don't see how this makes her at all "immune". You realize she also has an unwed underage(at the time) daughter who got knocked up by some random boy they tried to shotgun into a wedding right?

5. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in the republican base that get all hot bothered thinking about an ex beauty queen that can shoot and field dress a moose but you're really stretching it to say that she appeals to moderates. My local moderate republican radio hosts all thought she was a disgrace and tore her apart just as much as any liberal.


In short I think you're drinking the Kool Aid Wheels.

 

[WheelsRCool]

So, using your definition, Republicans are not conservatives...

The term "conservative" is just that, a term. A true Republican that adheres to the principles the party runs on today is a classical liberal for the most part. Unless there is a specific reason aside from religious belief, a classical liberal should have no problem with something like gay marriage.

That's a joke, right?

No. Multiple people who have worked with her have talked about how impressed they were with her intelligence, and this was prior to her coming onto the national scene. She also proved herself a quick study for the thiings she had to learn in such a short period of time.

That's not an objective statement.

Yes it is. Charisma is very important for a politician.

Why? Because she flat out refuses to budge from what "god" apparently wants her to do or think?

"God" isn't required to be pro-life. And it simply means she lives by what she believes in.

Well, she certainly made me, and most of the people I know, laugh out loud. What's the definition of a joke again?

That's because you and they are ideologues who are terrified of her. If she really was an idiot, a joke, and unpopular, NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT HER. She would have faded into obscurity by now. Politicians only lead the news when they are popular, such as Mark Sanford, Governor Spitzer, Governor Blago, etc...and now Sarah Palin.

When McCain chose her, you actually had lifelong feminists coming out and questioning whether a woman with five children should even be governor of a state. It would have been hilarious if it wasn't so sickening at the same time.

1. Haven't seen any evidence of this myself. I cringed every time I heard her speak.

You ever here President Obama speak without a Tele-Prompter? He is barely coherent. Or did you here Caroline Kennedy when she was after the New York Senate seat? Anyone who looks at her credentials and accomplishments can see she isn't stupid, regardless of one's political views, but she sounded like a drugged-out idiot.

Public speaking ability doesn't show intelligence, and it is silly to gauge one's intelligence by it.

4. Because she had herself a baby with down syndrome? I still don't see how this makes her at all "immune". You realize she also has an unwed underage(at the time) daughter who got knocked up by some random boy they tried to shotgun into a wedding right?

I'm talking about her, not her family. Plenty of politicians have children who get screwy acting.

5. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in the republican base that get all hot bothered thinking about an ex beauty queen that can shoot and field dress a moose but you're really stretching it to say that she appeals to moderates.

Palin has great appeal to moderates because she has governed as a moderate and can actually relate to people. She also has much appeal to women. It wasn't too long ago during the campaign when a thread was started on this very board by someone complaining about how she was attracting the women's vote away.

My local moderate republican radio hosts all thought she was a disgrace and tore her apart just as much as any liberal.

"Liberals" couldn't tear her apart. Still can't really. Because they can't really criticize her on anything, other than that she speaks funny. That's pretty much it. Or her daughter having been knocked up, although now they can say she abandoned her post. The Left simply insulted her, and continue to do so. I never heard any decent argument against her policy-wise. Republicans that didn't like her were either:

1) "Moderates" (aka) to the left somewhat, or

2) Reagan Republicans who thought she wasn't qualified enough, in which case technically they were right, accept neither were the two Democratic candidates either, and also if McCain had run with another white guy, he'd have slit his throat. How one looks in politics is important as well, unfortunately. Palin gave him a fighting chance. What did McCain in was the financial crises and McCain himself. Republicans were left scratching their heads at all of the odd things his campaign did, along with things it should have, but did not, do.

In short I think you're drinking the Kool Aid Wheels.

Nope, just stating facts.

 

[D H]

As for Palin, an article on Slate offers the most reasonable explanation I've read so far

The larger reason for Palin's early departure was that she was having no fun. Ever since she returned to Alaska from the national stage, being governor has been a chore. Her political opponents have launched 15 ethics charges against her. ... So Palin decided to chuck her office for the limelight.


Quitting in the face of adversity is not a viable option. I do not want a President who might quit the job the moment the going gets tough. Her resignation was a career killer.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Depends. For a 2012 run, it likely killed that (although who knows; if Barack Obama could have his Reverand Wright issue and still get elected, Sarah Palin could come back still; this last election has taught nothing is for sure in politics IMO). For a 2016 run, no one can know anything for sure.

 

[D H]

The Reverend Wright issue only rang true with those who already knew that Obama was the devil incarnate. It didn't have much impact on the electorate at large. Choosing to ignore the goofy things one's pastor says but choosing to continue going to that church because the pastor is inspirational is a commonplace occurrence to which many can relate. Palin's move will be viewed by the public at large as proof that she is not qualified to serve as president. Choosing to quit one's job because its not fun anymore is also something to which many can relate. Most of us don't follow this urge because we know that doing so is a career killer. Those who do follow this urge find a new career. Palin's move was a career killer. She needs to find a new career.

 

[LowlyPion]

... if Barack Obama could have his Reverand Wright issue and still get elected, Sarah Palin could come back still; this last election has taught nothing is for sure in politics IMO). For a 2016 run, no one can know anything for sure.

The trouble is that Sarah Palin has her Reverend Muthee and her End of Days Congregation up there in Wasilla. She has Reverend Wright problems up to her eyeballs.

Plus she just comes across as not a careful thinker.

Obama gave confidence that he understands what he says. That if called upon he can actually solve a problem intelligently. Poor Sarah Palin puts lipstick on Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich prose without apparently really grasping what she's talking about. I think Tina Fey does a better Sarah Palin, because she brings intelligence to the role. This is something that seems to escape Sara Barracuda.

 

[NBAJam100]

I admittedly have little to no knowledge of politics but I do however enjoy reading through these threads because its interesting to see the two sides go at it.

I have a question to pose to both Lowly/ left wing guys here and Wheels-

How are you gauging Palins intelligence?

This is a recurring issue here... and both sides are making claims. So lowly and co., what proof do you have that she is unintelligent? Wheels, what proof do you have that she is intelligent?

 

[LowlyPion]

How are you gauging Palins intelligence?

I'd say her body of work speaks for itself. Leaving aside her fractured academic career, anyone that would even suggest that because Alaska borders Russia across the Arctic Ocean, that qualifies her as having foreign policy experience, ... or when Putin raises his head ... or she can see Russia ... These are sophomoric statements that even most couch potato-heads find sub-par.

Even her withdrawal for the Governorship yesterday reveals a rambling declaration that raises more questions about her political sense than it answers questions about what she's really planning on doing. She seems ready to borrow from other sources like Reagan and Gingrich, but she shows little aptitude for any real analysis ... preferring to rely on ignorance and parochial simplification, like drill baby drill, that may appeal to the folks in her state, but doesn't by any stretch begin to deal with solving energy problems.

Is she an intelligent mother and caring adult for her family, she probably is, but her family does show some remarkable lapses and departure from the dogma of the conservative values that she publicly embraces.

In sum I'd say as it stands, one can only conclude that she is remarkably inept and unskilled to handle the complexities of the Office of President. She may be best suited to get her bread buttered as a talk show host and pander goods to the extreme right, like Glen Beck does.

 

[GeorginaS]

I wouldn't make fun of anyone's speaking ability right now when we have a President who cannot speak without a Tele-Prompter and a Vice President who seems to make a gaffe per week when speaking.

This recent talking-point slur by the radical right has long puzzled me. Do they not know that all of their talking heads and politicians all read from pre-prepared material presented on teleprompters rather than paper also? They do know that, right?

Watch an Obama White House briefing and you'd realize he can speak just fine without a script. Do these people forget the library of books published featuring Bush's inability to speak coherently at all?

So to you, Wheels, I suggest you watch the Palin interviews with Katie Couric in which Palin wasn't reading from a teleprompter (which she was during her campaign speeches at rallies, by the way) and see how coherent and capable of speaking unaided she is. Find out if she can even name one of the many, many newspapers she reads. For that matter, watch her announcement yesterday and see if you can make any sense of what the woman says.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You ever here President Obama speak without a Tele-Prompter? He is barely coherent. Or did you here Caroline Kennedy when she was after the New York Senate seat? Anyone who looks at her credentials and accomplishments can see she isn't stupid, regardless of one's political views, but she sounded like a drugged-out idiot.

Public speaking ability doesn't show intelligence, and it is silly to gauge one's intelligence by it.

Since most things written can easily have been written by someone else we have little choice but to go by how a politician speaks. I would also say their educational background but Palin's is rather spotty so I'll leave off and go by what I can see before me.
I've heard Obama several times with and without a prompter. When unprepared he may stutter and verbally misstep but I get the over all impression that he knows what he is talking about. He does not ramble on into never ending incoherant sentences.
I heard Palin a number of times both prepared and unprepared. When she was prepared she seemed to be reciting lines as if she didn't really understand what she was talking about all that well and when she was unprepared she sounded like a babbling idiot who had no idea what was coming out of her mouth. It was frightfully reminicent of Ms South Carolina from the 2007 Teen USA Pagent.

I'm talking about her, not her family. Plenty of politicians have children who get screwy acting.

You still have not said why she is untouchable in regards to abortion. And my point bringing up the daughter is that families forcing their daughters to keep children they may not necessarily want or be ready to take care of as well as pushing them into marriage with a person they may not have any interest in spending their lives with are major issues for prochoice activists.
Palin is lucky that she can afford to take care of a child with down syndrome. And her daughter is lucky to have a family that are willing and able to support her and her child. The vast majority of people are not so lucky.

Palin has great appeal to moderates because she has governed as a moderate and can actually relate to people. She also has much appeal to women. It wasn't too long ago during the campaign when a thread was started on this very board by someone complaining about how she was attracting the women's vote away.

"Liberals" couldn't tear her apart. Still can't really. Because they can't really criticize her on anything, other than that she speaks funny. That's pretty much it. Or her daughter having been knocked up, although now they can say she abandoned her post. The Left simply insulted her, and continue to do so. I never heard any decent argument against her policy-wise. Republicans that didn't like her were either:

1) "Moderates" (aka) to the left somewhat, or

2) Reagan Republicans who thought she wasn't qualified enough, in which case technically they were right, accept neither were the two Democratic candidates either, and also if McCain had run with another white guy, he'd have slit his throat. How one looks in politics is important as well, unfortunately. Palin gave him a fighting chance. What did McCain in was the financial crises and McCain himself. Republicans were left scratching their heads at all of the odd things his campaign did, along with things it should have, but did not, do.

Do you see the problem here that I have underlined? Palin was not even well received by moderates in her own party. How then does she possesses an appeal for moderates?

As for the womens vote Hillary supporters were still smarting over her loss in the primaries and were already talking about voting for McCain to spite Obama. Some few people were worried that Palin gave them more of an excuse but that quickly evaporated when she proved to be a rather poor representative of women in politics.

Lets look at some analysis though...
http://politicsandsociety.usc.edu/2008/10/sarah-palin-is-no-millennial.html

There is no question that Palin’s nomination energized the conservative base of the Republican Party, which was suspicious of McCain’s commitment to their positions on the social issues dealing with “God, guns and gays.” However, beyond those Republican stalwarts, the nomination has done little to gain McCain additional support from groups such as disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, independents and moderates — all of which the campaign hoped would be won over by Palin. Since the conventions, polls by CBS and others have shown that Barack Obama’s support among white women has gone up and McCain’s has declined. McCain has also lost support among moderates and independents since he chose Palin.

My emphasis.

Stats...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/obama-wins-how-he-did-it_n_141231.html
I think I have seen people complain about the Huffington Post before but I am only using it as a quick source of voter stats. If you do not like them then please provide a better source.
These are all in Obama's favour.
57-41 among women.
85-15 among Hillary supporters.
61-38 among working women.
50-48 among non-working women.

I don't see where Palin captured the women's vote for McCain.

 

[GeorginaS]

Quitting in the face of adversity is not a viable option. I do not want a President who might quit the job the moment the going gets tough. Her resignation was a career killer.

As someone anyone would actually like to see sitting in the White House, or hold any political office? I agree with you, D H. However I don't perceive Palin as someone who would see it that way. It strikes me (given all of the attention she received recently for simply visiting New York) that she'd rather the limelight than the obscurity of Alaska. She appears to revel in the attention. I'd hazard a guess and say she's been offered lucrative speaking engagements as one of the only viable celebrity-type Republicans left. I'd further guess that would appeal to her.

I do not think that any of that or those decisions makes her a viable candidate for the White House. It's just speculation on my part, from what I've seen, (and I've tried really, really hard not to watch) about what she's up to right now.

 

[Civilized]

The strict Reagan Republicans who are for limited government, fiscal conservatism...

Ahahaha! In real terms Reagan presided over what is far and away the largest increase in the national deficit since world war 2! Calling reagan a fiscal conservative is a complete and total distortion of history, fiscally conservative describes the exact opposite of Reagan. Ahahaha!

 

[Moonbear]

Palin is a relatively unpopular governor of the 4th least-populous state in the county, which has been surviving on oil revenues in recent memory. The notion that she doesn't want to saddle her state with a lame-duck governor is laughable at a minimum. It is more creative than the "I want to spend more time with my family" excuse that creeps use when they are caught in wrong-doing, but only a bit.

And, in her case, it actually would have made more sense for her to claim she wanted to spend more time with her family, perhaps get her youngest son through his toddler years and settled with a good caretaker able to handle his special needs before returning to politics. Admitting to being a lame-duck governor is pretty much a death knell to any future political aspirations.

Mr. Jackson's memorial ceremony is next Tuesday. That ought to dominate the news cycle once again. (It's times like this I'm so very glad I don't watch television news.)

People are wondering about the timing of her announcement, and I think this is precisely the reason for the timing. She knows she can't just slip out without anybody noticing, so what's the next best thing? Slip out when nobody is watching the news, over a long holiday weekend when people are on vacation, out with the family, having bbq's and generally not inside watching TV, listening to the radio, reading the newspapers or surfing the internet as often as usual. By the time everyone returns to work on Monday, the news will be focused back on Michael Jackson's memorial, and she's made the quietest exit possible.

Has she simply realized she's not cut out for politics and it's time to get out before any more damage is done, or is there some bigger scandal brewing that she's trying to dodge, I don't know. I am sure that there's no way to spin this that looks positive for running for a higher office than governor if she's showing she's too thin-skinned to handle the spotlight that's already on her.

 

[D H]

As someone anyone would actually like to see sitting in the White House, or hold any political office?

Any political office, let alone the White House. I generally expect anyone elected to public office, whether it is mayor of some small town or president of the country, to finish the job to which they were elected. There are exceptions of course.

Politicians elected to a lowly office often run for some higher office before the expirations of the terms to which they were elected. Politicians in a higher office often appoint people who have proven themselves to head agencies. The latter is a very honorable situation. I would feel zero ill will to politicians who resign under such conditions.

The former is a grin-and-bear-it kind of thing, but I fully understand it. Politicians who wait for their current positions to expire before running for higher office risk sinking into anonymity. It is much the same as switching jobs within the same career field. The best time to switch is when you are at the pinnacle of success.

Palin quit for neither of those reasons. She just quit.

 

[BobG]

I keep thinking about her statement that "only dead fish go with the flow". Could this be a result of her being on the losing side of the split within the Republican party?

What makes you think she is on any "losing side" of a split within the party?

...

You are over-simplifying the Republican party. What you would define as a "moderate," I define as a more Leftist Republican.

The term "ultra-conservative," what do you mean? Neither Mike Huckabee nor Sarah Palin, the religious fundamentalists, were strict fiscally conservative, limited government Republicans per se.

If you mean "ultra-conservative" as in limited government, free-market capitalism, fiscal conservativsm, strong national defense, etc...that's not really "conservative" aside from the name. It's classically liberal. Many such conservatives may believe in God, but that doesn't make them at all the same as the fundamentalists who want to ram religion down people's throats.

The ultra-conservative fundamentalists are the types who put religion first. You can be a quasi-socialist, but as long as you are a fundamentalist Christian, they'll vote you in.

I doubt she's on the losing side of a split within the Republican Party. The losing side is the moderates (Leftist Republicans, if you prefer) that have been defecting from the Republican Party and becoming independents. That's given religious conservatives a lot more clout in the Republican Party and that faction adores Palin. (Compare the percentage of "conservatives", "moderates", and "liberals" in election polling for 2000, 2004, and 2008 - they've stayed virtually constant. Then compare the percentage of "Republicans", "Independents", and "Democrats" - Democrats have had a slight increase, but are mostly pretty flat, while the number of Republicans have been decreasing as religious conservative influence has increased.)

I do agree Palin and Huckabee (and Romney, for that matter) can't really be considered ultra-conservative or religious fundamentalists if you look at their record. Alaska is a very libertarian state and you can't elected on a religious fundamentalist stand (even if Palin's personal beliefs seem a good fit for religious conservatives). Huckabee governed a state that was split between Republicans and Democrats and never would have stayed in office with an ultra-conservative stand. Romney governed the most liberal state of any of them.

The fact that all three tried to tap into the religious fundamentalist core just emphasizes which side is on the winning side in the Republican Party split.

There's another off year Congressional election to get through, and you might see what really matters in elections - the economy. If we're still in a recession, Democrats will get hammered and religious conservatives will take it as evidence that they can succeed without any moderates.

Come 2012, we'll see which side was on the winning side of the Republican split. If Romney runs as the pre-2008 Romney and Huckabee emphasizes his record in Arkansas instead of running as an ex-preacher, then the economic conservatives (Romney) or moderates (Huckabee) will have won. If all three candidates run as religious conservatives again, then I think you can conclude the Republican Party is on its way to third party status - in that case, Palin will be as good as any other candidate likely to win the Republican nomination.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin quit for neither of those reasons. She just quit.

I think she is likely miscalculating things again. The better cover story would have been to tend to her family, while she goes for the geld, without saying so of course. At least she realizes that announcing she won't run again for Governor will make her less effective. But that said, she shows that her heart is not so much in public service, as it apparently is in self service. If she really had policy passion, if she really believed in this gas pipeline, or about Alaska Issues as she did when she ran, she'd stay and fight them through and ... well serve the Alaska Public.

But she's cutting and reaching for the gold ring that circumstances has placed within her reach. The thing that I think she is missing is that as Obama says there are some that are drawn to the business of politics, that treat it as just a business opportunity, and others are drawn to it for public service. Despite what Palin may say, as all politicians inevitably do whether meaning it or not, I think she is more motivated just by the business of it, and not as much by any genuine call to service. Obama for his part has certainly garnered some riches along the way, but his concerns seem much more focused on bringing policy change - apparently a missing club from Sarah's golf bag.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I doubt she's on the losing side of a split within the Republican Party. The losing side is the moderates (Leftist Republicans, if you prefer) that have been defecting from the Republican Party and becoming independents.

One out of five people now consider themselves to be Republicans. The Republicans may still be an exclusive club, but the fact is that unless they expand their base, they are doomed to go the way of the Whigs. That is not the winning side but it what Palin represents. About 31% consider themselves to be Democrats, and 38% Independent.

That's given religious conservatives a lot more clout in the Republican Party and that faction adores Palin.

A doomed faction.

(Compare the percentage of "conservatives", "moderates", and "liberals" in election polling for 2000, 2004, and 2008 - they've stayed virtually constant. Then compare the percentage of "Republicans", "Independents", and "Democrats" - Democrats have had a slight increase, but are mostly pretty flat, while the number of Republicans have been decreasing as religious conservative influence has increased.)

Precisely! The Republican party is running out anyone but the extremists. The way they are going, they will soon have a very unified and a very small and insignificant party.

I do agree Palin and Huckabee (and Romney, for that matter) can't really be considered ultra-conservative or religious fundamentalists if you look at their record.

If you want to know if someone is a fundamenalist you have to look at their religion. She is Pentacostal for crying out loud! Have you ever been to a Pentacostal service? You get the end-time prophesies and the whole bit. In fact there was a video of Palin describing how everyone would be running to Alaska as the world ends. She even boasts that she and her fellow devotees are blessed with knowledge of the future. Mainstream Christianity has a name for that - false prophets.

The fact that all three tried to tap into the religious fundamentalist core just emphasizes which side is on the winning side in the Republican Party split.

You keep ignoring the results of the election.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Frankly, the notion that someone like Colin Powell is considered a leftist only shows how far the Republican party has sunk.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The Reverend Wright issue only rang true with those who already knew that Obama was the devil incarnate. It didn't have much impact on the electorate at large. Choosing to ignore the goofy things one's pastor says but choosing to continue going to that church because the pastor is inspirational is a commonplace occurrence to which many can relate.

Would have to disagree. And he didn't just do that, he said the man was like a father figure to him, and titled one of his books after one of his sermons. The man traveled once with Farrakhan.

So you're telling me all leftists and Democrats would let it slide if say Sarah Palin attended a church of let's say some John Hagee or Rich Warren type, whom she said was like a father figure and had baptize her children and marry her to her husband, meanwhile he had once traveled with some guy who said whites should kill blacks and Jews...?

The simple fact is that the political Left became complete and total hypocrites on that one. No Republican would ever have been allowed to slide on something like that. People STILL criticize Palin for her church.

And no, you do not sit in a church because the guy is "inspirational" if he says racist and anti-American things unless you hold similar views, I know I wouldn't anyway.

Palin's move will be viewed by the public at large as proof that she is not qualified to serve as president.

Perhaps.

Choosing to quit one's job because its not fun anymore is also something to which many can relate.

The thing is, did she quit because it wasn't "fun" or because she couldn't do it properly anymore due to all the ethics charges and so forth?

Most of us don't follow this urge because we know that doing so is a career killer. Those who do follow this urge find a new career. Palin's move was a career killer. She needs to find a new career

Time will tell.

The trouble is that Sarah Palin has her Reverend Muthee and her End of Days Congregation up there in Wasilla. She has Reverend Wright problems up to her eyeballs.

I haven't seen anything racist or prejudiced from her church. If they believe in the End of Days, whatever, that's their belief. No different than the similar End of Days the global warming fearmongers currently in charge believe in. The Reverand Wright issue was because he said racist and anti-American things, had a history that suggested racism, and the hypocrisy the left showed on this; the mainstream media, they were going to cover that whole thing up! Do you really think they would have done so with a Republican? NO WAY.

Obama gave confidence that he understands what he says. That if called upon he can actually solve a problem intelligently.

Sure, that's how he seemed. But how one "sounds" or "seems" means little, all that matters is how much one actually knows, and the truth is Barack Obama was horribly qualified to be President. He had a very poor knowledge of the issues and no one in the media ever asked him any real questions, like how will you pay for your healthcare, how will you tackle global warming without harming the economy, how will you fix education, etc...he avoided like the plague the network he knew would ask him such questions, Fox News, except for Bill O'Reilly, whom he had to go on because he'd promised, in which he only allowed a very short interview and couldn't really answer any of the questions in detail.

For whatever reason, he still cannot even admit he was wrong on the surge, of which there is nothing to be ashamed of, considering the entire foreign policy establishment, the Pentagon, the Iraq Study Group, and both Republicans and Democrats were against initially.

He also never was able to explain his desire to "spread the wealth" and how that is not socialist. He ran as a hardcore leftist for the most part, which clearly showed him as either an ideologue or someone willing to say whatever needs to be said to get elected to power.

Poor Sarah Palin puts lipstick on Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich prose without apparently really grasping what she's talking about.

It isn't that tough to understand the basic principles she was talking about. She just needs more in-depth knowledge of the issues, but had no more or less than Barack Obama and Biden at the time. And she clearly knew just as much, or more, than Joseph Biden in their debate.

I'd say her body of work speaks for itself. Leaving aside her fractured academic career, anyone that would even suggest that because Alaska borders Russia across the Arctic Ocean, that qualifies her as having foreign policy experience, ... or when Putin raises his head ... or she can see Russia ... These are sophomoric statements that even most couch potato-heads find sub-par.

Even her withdrawal for the Governorship yesterday reveals a rambling declaration that raises more questions about her political sense than it answers questions about what she's really planning on doing. She seems ready to borrow from other sources like Reagan and Gingrich, but she shows little aptitude for any real analysis ... preferring to rely on ignorance and parochial simplification, like drill baby drill, that may appeal to the folks in her state, but doesn't by any stretch begin to deal with solving energy problems.

Palin said in her speech at the RNC she was fully aware drilling alone will not solve our energy problems.

I'd say Barack Obama never explained how carbon cap-and-trade magically will fix our energy problems though. Also, have you ever considered that the reason she may have resigned is so she can actually concentrate on studying the issues in-depth, something that may be rather impossible right now when she can't even really do her job as governor at the moment?

Is she an intelligent mother and caring adult for her family, she probably is, but her family does show some remarkable lapses and departure from the dogma of the conservative values that she publicly embraces.

Sometimes one can be a fabulous parent and the children will still be screwy.

This recent talking-point slur by the radical right has long puzzled me. Do they not know that all of their talking heads and politicians all read from pre-prepared material presented on teleprompters rather than paper also? They do know that, right?

Yes, but most politicians are not so completely dependent on the Tele-Prompter that they are completely inept without one. Bill Clinton certainly had no problem winging it if he needed to. President Obama flat-out cannot speak without a Tele-Prompter. I mean he can but he struggles greatly. This isn't to say he's an idiot, I'm just pointing out about speaking.

Watch an Obama White House briefing and you'd realize he can speak just fine without a script. Do these people forget the library of books published featuring Bush's inability to speak coherently at all?

I have watched plenty of them and no he does not speak well without one. He also doesn't debate. He only allows a reporter to get the microphone, ask a question, upon which then the microphone is removed. He doesn't allow for any kind of sparring or debate really.

And yes, Republicans were fully aware of George W. Bush's bad speaking ability. But no one ever claimed he was a great speaker.

So to you, Wheels, I suggest you watch the Palin interviews with Katie Couric in which Palin wasn't reading from a teleprompter (which she was during her campaign speeches at rallies, by the way) and see how coherent and capable of speaking unaided she is.

Actually, during her speech at the RNC, her Tele-Prompter froze up midway through and she had to go from memory for the rest of the speech. If she knows the subject, she seems to have no problem speaking from memory, although I'd say she still has some work to do. It just takes practice. You need to take a look at some videos of what happened to President Obama when his Tele-Prompter either froze or went off script.

Find out if she can even name one of the many, many newspapers she reads.

Stupid flub she should have been prepared for.

For that matter, watch her announcement yesterday and see if you can make any sense of what the woman says.

Her pitch and tone on that one went up and down too much was the problem there.

Since most things written can easily have been written by someone else we have little choice but to go by how a politician speaks. I would also say their educational background but Palin's is rather spotty so I'll leave off and go by what I can see before me.

Speaking ability is not what you by. You go by knowledge. That's it. Educational background can be counted, but ultimately is meaningless when it comes to something like the Presidency. If the candidate has no degree, but is very knowledgeable on the issues, that is all that matters really.

Do not make the "fallacy of the intellectual," i.e. assuming that because one is an expert in some narrow, specialized profession, that this somehow makes them more qualified than others to be President.

Barack Obama showed himself to be highly ignorant of the basics of economics, foreign policy, history, and the Constitution, despite being a Columbia and Harvard graduate, and a Constitutional law professor.

That, or he's a total ideologue. It's one or the other. I'd guess the latter moreso, with some of the former. But no one ever really put any tough questions to him.

I've heard Obama several times with and without a prompter. When unprepared he may stutter and verbally misstep but I get the over all impression that he knows what he is talking about.

Any good politician can seem to know what they're talking about. If you listen to his speeches however, and what he said throughout the campaign, it was very apparent, as I have said, that he was either an ideologue or he knew nothing. He is an expert at using a lot of words to ultimately say nothing.

He does not ramble on into never ending incoherant sentences. I heard Palin a number of times both prepared and unprepared. When she was prepared she seemed to be reciting lines as if she didn't really understand what she was talking about all that well and when she was unprepared she sounded like a babbling idiot who had no idea what was coming out of her mouth. It was frightfully reminicent of Ms South Carolina from the 2007 Teen USA Pagent.

True, she needs to work on those aspects. She needs to learn the issues more in-depth. She did okay during her VP debate, but she still needed to learn more. Some have been wondering why she hasn't yet, but some speculate it is because of the ethics charges and so forth she is handling right now and maybe that is why she resigned. Time will tell. But as I said, I never heard Barack Obama sound like he knew what he was talking about either. The list of questions Republicans wanted him to be asked, I don't think I could list them all here. Which he never would because if confronted with them, it would quickly come apparent either how ignorant of the issues he is or how much of an ideologue he is.

MCCAIN didn't know what he was talking about even, and Biden, they had to wire his jaw shut near the end of the election. None of them did really. That's the sad thing.

You still have not said why she is untouchable in regards to abortion.

She hasn't had an abortion herself.

And my point bringing up the daughter is that families forcing their daughters to keep children they may not necessarily want or be ready to take care of as well as pushing them into marriage with a person they may not have any interest in spending their lives with are major issues for prochoice activists.

Her daughter went and got knocked up. I doubt she would have kept, or even had, the baby if she really didn't want it.

cont'd...

 

[WheelsRCool]

Palin is lucky that she can afford to take care of a child with down syndrome. And her daughter is lucky to have a family that are willing and able to support her and her child. The vast majority of people are not so lucky.

I never said abortion should be banned. But it is a touchy issue.

However, in modern America, I don't think her daughter would need any family. The government will provide her with Medicaid, an apartment, a welfare check, food stamps, and so forth. Or maybe that's just New York State where I am? I know it's the "cool" thing among many young girls, just pop out a kid, and the government gives you all the above, and you can have parties and so forth, pop out a second kid and you get a bigger apartment (an example of a social program incentivizing bad behavior).

Do you see the problem here that I have underlined? Palin was not even well received by moderates in her own party. How then does she possesses an appeal for moderates?

The same way in which Barack Obama wasn't liked per se by "moderate" Democrats, but attracted much of the overall "moderate" vote in the population.

As for the womens vote Hillary supporters were still smarting over her loss in the primaries and were already talking about voting for McCain to spite Obama. Some few people were worried that Palin gave them more of an excuse but that quickly evaporated when she proved to be a rather poor representative of women in politics.

I wouldn't say it was just Hillary voters. The truth is there are lot of women in this country with Palin's point-of-view. All women are not automatically pro-choice Democrats. And Palin was no poor representative of women in politics. She just needs some fine-tuning. Same as Caroline Kennedy would have if she'd gotten into the Senate.

Lets look at some analysis though...

Bad analysis. You're talking about CBS polls, which cannot be trusted. Furthermore, if that was the case, again, NO ONE ON THE LEFT WOULD CARE about Sarah Palin. They are only so viscious regarding her because she is such a threat to them.

My emphasis.

Stats...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_141231.html
I think I have seen people complain about the Huffington Post before but I am only using it as a quick source of voter stats. If you do not like them then please provide a better source.
These are all in Obama's favour.
57-41 among women.
85-15 among Hillary supporters.
61-38 among working women.
50-48 among non-working women.

I don't see where Palin captured the women's vote for McCain.

I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) she captured the women's vote for McCain, if that was the case, we'd have John McCain as President right now, I said Palin attracted a lot of the woman's vote, or made a lot of them think a lot more deeply about who to vote for. She provided a lot of appeal to women that scared (and still scares) the daylights out of the left.

For example, if it had been John McCain versus Presidential candidate Joe Biden let's pretend, and then McCain introduced Palin, Palin likely would have pulled enough of the women's vote away from Biden to win (assuming Biden had the lead). A lot of women liked Barack Obama a lot as well though.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158893 - Here is one article, but Google "palin women vote" and read various articles about how the polls changed when Palin was introduced.

As someone anyone would actually like to see sitting in the White House, or hold any political office? I agree with you, D H. However I don't perceive Palin as someone who would see it that way. It strikes me (given all of the attention she received recently for simply visiting New York) that she'd rather the limelight than the obscurity of Alaska. She appears to revel in the attention. I'd hazard a guess and say she's been offered lucrative speaking engagements as one of the only viable celebrity-type Republicans left. I'd further guess that would appeal to her.

Celebrity appeals to plenty of politicians. It appeals in particular to our current President, who actually was criticized by some in the regular media for seeming to continue to "campaign" during his presidency early on while the recession was getting worse even.

Not saying there is anything wrong with a politician liking celebrity. However, if that is why she resigned, then no she shouldn't be President. If she resigned to legimately get up to speed on the issues or something, that is different.

Ahahaha! In real terms Reagan presided over what is far and away the largest increase in the national deficit since world war 2! Calling reagan a fiscal conservative is a complete and total distortion of history, fiscally conservative describes the exact opposite of Reagan. Ahahaha!

Under Reagan, government stopped growing as a percentage of the economy for the first time in decades. Reagan's deficit came from four things:

1) Paul Volcker's contractionary monetary policy at the Federal Reserve to fix inflation automatically drove up the deficit as inflation declined and the recession occurred.

2) Reagan signed off on some incredibly large tax cuts initially (he later scaled them back by about a third).

3) He wanted the Democrats in Congress to cut back their spending on social programs, but they would not.

4) Reagan significantly increased defense spending to re-build the military.

Around 1985-1986, the Reagan deficit began shrinking due to the economic growth.

Obama for his part has certainly garnered some riches along the way, but his concerns seem much more focused on bringing policy change - apparently a missing club from Sarah's golf bag.

Public service doesn't strike me really as what President Obama desired. He himself once said he would never think of running for President until he had gained more experience. I think the allure of power, his ideology, and his wanting to change the very foundations this country is built upon, are what drew him into it. He is a socialist at heart. He believes government is the answer to all of our problems.

One out of five people now consider themselves to be Republicans. The Republicans may still be an exclusive club, but the fact is that unless they expand their base, they are doomed to go the way of the Whigs. That is not the winning side but it what Palin represents. About 31% consider themselves to be Democrats, and 38% Independent.

The exact same thing was said all the way back in 1965. And in times after. The Republicans will make a comeback, just as the Democrats do when they get down and out.

Precisely! The Republican party is running out anyone but the extremists. The way they are going, they will soon have a very unified and a very small and insignificant party.

Not really, they are running out everyone who is a form of leftist in some form. No true classically liberal Republican is extremist.

Our current President is an example of an extremist, as are much of the current Democrat party, which has been hijacked by the hardcore Left.

If you want to know if someone is a fundamenalist you have to look at their religion. She is Pentacostal for crying out loud! Have you ever been to a Pentacostal service? You get the end-time prophesies and the whole bit. In fact there was a video of Palin describing how everyone would be running to Alaska as the world ends. She even boasts that she and her fellow devotees are blessed with knowledge of the future. Mainstream Christianity has a name for that - false prophets.

So what? And Barack Obama comes from a church that is okay with racism and anti-Americanism and is grounded in Marxism, with a pastor who believes that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus to kill black people. A person's personal religion is of no concern, unless they are going to force it on the citizens or the religion entails racism and anti-Americanism (you don't want an anti-American person becoming President).

The current Democrats in control are trying to force their religion of environmentalism and big government on us right now with this huge boondoggle called "cap-and-trade." Because if we don't, then we'll all die when the Earth exacts its revenge on us from ultra-powerful hurricanes, floods, tornados, blah blah blah.

What you need to realize is conventional religion is not the only religion. BOTH sides have religion, but for the left, their "god" is the government and/or the Earth. Their religions are environmentalism and large government.

This isn't always set in stone, occassionally there are combinations of say socialism and Christianity (Barack Obama's church for example), but historically, when conventional religion is suppressed, the religion of the State takes its place.

Frankly, the notion that someone like Colin Powell is considered a leftist only shows how far the Republican party has sunk.

Powell went and supported a man who was the exact opposite of almost everything he claims to have ever stood for.

 

[lisab]

I never said abortion should be banned. But it is a touchy issue.

However, in modern America, I don't think her daughter would need any family. The government will provide her with Medicaid, an apartment, a welfare check, food stamps, and so forth. Or maybe that's just New York State where I am? I know it's the "cool" thing among many young girls, just pop out a kid, and the government gives you all the above, and you can have parties and so forth, pop out a second kid and you get a bigger apartment (an example of a social program incentivizing bad behavior).

OK, without going further into you post...this sounds too much like Reagan's "Welfare Queens Driving Cadillacs" myth...a dramatization that is real only in conservatives' minds. Care to give a reference for this claim?

 

[WheelsRCool]

No I can't; I know this solely from the experience of my own two cousins who did this, along with some of my sister's friends. That's why I said I'm not sure if it was national or just in New York State where I live.

 

[LowlyPion]

Can we keep it to Sarah Palin? These long screeds may make people feel better that write them, but frankly I don't read them.

Pithiness is in too short a supply.

 

[humanino]

I don't read them.

Frankly I read good chunks of it, and it was worth several good laughs.