Palin's exit

Okay, I'm not going to be immature about it, as some have been. I just have to give my two cents about this.

First of all it seems that the Republican party has used her as essentially a lightning rod to attract liberal hate, and in-turn garner sympathy. They have someone that the base can love, while inspiring the worst in their opponents.

Now, she seemed to take swipes at everyone from the "media," which in conservative speak means anyone who doesn't agree with them, guess Fox news is not a media outlet, to even Hollywood. Hollywood, really? Who was that guy that was an actor, he was President in the 80's, he was a Republican. . . Oh yeah! Ronald Reagan.

"Stop making things up." -Okay, so since the birth of our nation politicians have endured slanderous lies and mudslinging, but wait you have to play nice now because she's a woman and that would be sexist! Oh please! For God sake, she basically called her opponent a baby-killing, terrorist, and she's claiming she was cast in a bad light.

Also, I love how she ran on being a moose-hunting, soccer-mom, and then claims that the "media" stereotyped her.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Hockey-mum! She`s a Hockey-mum! And her happy family (see above) seems to be quite nice.

Honestly I was thinking about opening a thread like "Is Sarah Palin HOT?"

Options:

X Yes, she`s hot!
X No, she`s not!
X I can see Russia from my house!


But maybe this wouldn`t be appreciated on an american board.

I don't agree with you totally, Freak. Yes, she brought some of it on herself, but overall, she was just another vice-presidential candidate along for the ride. Sure, she put her foot in her mouth a few times, but more times than none, the media was there to capitalize and re-word what she had to say.

Case in point, the whole "I can see Russia from my house" line, a line that wasn't even uttered by Palin. Tina Fey coined that phrase on SNL. Yet, when the American public was asked about the candidates, one of the questions was, "Which VP candidate claimed to be able to see Russia from their porch?" Every single person asked said Palin. Of course, there's two sides to every story, and the person with the camera could've chosen to edit out the responses that answered correctly.

Regardless of what happened last year, Sarah Palin is a fine politician. I would rather have her as the VP than Biden, but that's me.

She's far from being out of the spotlight, but with her not being the Governor of Alaska anymore, she can focus her attention to bigger things. `

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I think my chances of getting with her just went up ever so slightly with this move...

__________________

Oh come now, she was answering a question about her "foreign policy experience" and answered that she's next door to Russia. The answer was inane and stupid.

She pretty much believes anyone who criticizes her is wrong. She has the thinnest skin of any politician I've ever seen.

I'm sorry, and please don't take this personally, but I'm appalled that this woman is even considered a possible leader. I sincerely don't understand.

And how can a woman expect to be a leader when she quit her job halfway through? If I was an Alaska voter, I'd be horrified and angry that her ambition is more important than the state she had agreed to lead.

I really hope the title of this thread comes true and she exits. For good.

Sure, she said some stupid things. Do they hold a candle to our current, actual Vice President in terms of stupidity or frequency? No. If this is some kind of measure of intelligence or qualification, why would Biden be excluded from its judgment?

As for "she pretty much believes anyone who criticizes her is wrong" -- well, find me a politician who doesn't think this way, or at least act as such. The idea that she has thin skin is an extrapolation and conjecture, not a fact. I dunno if you've noticed, but our current President has taken shots at radio talk show hosts and any number of criticis well beneath his position and stature. He's taking bait and firing back at every turn. Isn't that the very definition of thin-skinned? Or does it become standing-up for oneself when a politican we like does it?

What it really comes down to is that all this talk about criticism, or being thin-skinned, applies to basically every politician, and the stupid comments thing applies to many. People just make excuses for it or gloss over it when they like the politician, and they assume the absolute worse about it when they don't.

As for the quitting: we don't even know why she quit yet, so that's an extremely premature judgment. And let's be clear about what's typical here: Obama and McCain both missed lots of Senate votes while running for President. I'm not convinced this is better than stepping down and letting someone else do the actual job, rather than holding onto it as an insurance policy and failing to meet your obligations. You can make a pretty good case that it's worse.

But, again, when one politician does it it's fine, and when the other does, it's a horrific display of ambition. And really, given the current White House occupant, I'd expect massive ambition to be the last thing a Democrat would suggest is a bad thing, because Obama's practically teeming with it.

As the Approval Rating Sinks

This thread was about Palin, not Obama. I won't discuss Obama here on this board. It will become a discussion that I won't enjoy.

Furthermore, why people defend Palin is beyond me. It seems defending Palin comes down to loyalty to party over country. Would you defend her if she was a Democrat? BE HONEST with yourselves! You even said Biden said stupid things. You have to know that the definition of "stupid" is a heck of a lot different for him than for her.

She is worthless and should not be defended.

You are both smart enough to know this. Defend those Republicans that should have your loyalty.

Sorry, Yoda, Sedai, I respect you both but ... eh, I don't understand.

He was simply making a point. You can't judge one person, then not even recognize the flaws of another. The current administration is full of their own flaws, to which there are critics on both sides.

How is the definition different, he's the flippin' VP and statements he has made (even with Obama standing next to him) are simply mind-blowing. I guess he's this decade's Dan Quayle. I'm not keeping track of every little goof-up every politician makes, but he's up there. As I said before, Palin has her fair share of mistakes, but to say she is incapable of a leadership position is just crazy. If she was a Democrat, I wouldn't have to defend her because the media would be sure to keep the negative comments away from the public.

Whatever her reason for stepping down as Governor is, I'm sure it's in the best interest of the people of Alaska.

But when you criticize Palin for something Obama has done, the contradiction becomes a relevant point of discussion. Why does one transgression get ignored, but the other amplified? It's a fair question, and I'm not going to stop asking it.

Anyway, yes, I've come to realize you probably won't discuss Obama. That's your choice, but the silence says more than any reply ever could, to me. I'll keep pointing out his blatant contradictions and broken campaign promises, as well as the things he's doing that were so hated under Bush. Whether or not any of Obama's supporters actually address these points is their own business, but I can't promise I won't read into the lack of response. I don't think a valid response, other than a mea culpa of sorts, really exists.

You realize this is exactly what I'm saying to you, right? And no, I don't think the definition of "stupid" is different. I can start reeling off some of the things he's done and said, if you want, but I think you've probably heard most of them.

Maybe I would make fewer allowances for her if she switched parties. I honestly don't know, and I'm certainly not a good enough person to be able to be as objective as I know I ought to be. But I'd like to think that, if Biden and Palin were reversed, I'd be able to at least admit that he was guilty of all the same sorts of things, or else acknowledge the double-standard. Though I think, if Biden were my guy, I'd have refrained from making those sorts of statements in the other direction in the first place, being aware of how vulnerable he was to the same criticism.

Yikes, "worthless"? I don't think you can blame me if I conclude that this goes way beyond mere political disagreement.

I respect you, too, but what I don't understand is why something is "horrific" and causes "anger" when Palin does it, but not worth a mention when Biden does, or how the criticisms about ambition and "quitting" don't reflect just as badly on the politicians you admire. I want to assume there is a better reason than Democrat = good, Republican = bad, but you're not giving me much reason to.

Of course it is in the best interest of Alaska. This woman shouldn't be in an office of leadership. Anywhere.

And you've got to be kidding about the media comment. Were you alive during the 1990s? This idea that the media is supportive of Democrats only is so insulting and ridiculous. Do you even watch cable news?

I challenge you again -- would you honestly be defending a woman who cannot even make a statement without resorting to hokey isms and "doggone it" type of rhetoric if it wasn't for the reason she is a Republican? This woman would be crucified by all conservatives if she was a Democrat!

How can people here that seem to respect intelligence continue to defend this idiot? There is nothing deep or insightful in her. That's not what this country needs. And she quit her job before she was finished. How can anyone admire that?

Yoda:

Because you don't seem to understand why some of us HATE her so much. She exemplifies what I find so disturbing about my country. An unintelligent boob of a woman is put up on some pedestal and even talked about as a possible leader of this country. This appalls me on so many levels.

People find her refreshing? Smart? Honest to god, what planet am I from if I find that so utterly out there?

You admire intelligence and insight. You are an intelligent man, yet you would defend someone like her. That is so disturbing to me you have no idea. And is the crux of the matter. I'm watching a Republican Party that will do ANYTHING to protect their party. Including asking the first black President to give more identification to prove he "belongs in the neighborhood." Let's keep tearing this guy down to make sure his policies don't get through and the American people become disappointed so we can WIN again.

Because, hey, that's all that matters. Preserve the party at all costs. Obstruct. Confuse. Criticize. Defend.

Furthermore, I can't go with your argument about Biden. I actually admire him. Yes. Because I do think he is smart and ethical. His statements, to me, come from an honest place that is out of place in modern politics. His "stupid" comments come more from a place of, "oh, Joe, we wanted that to be quiet, you didn't really say that, did you?" then say, "well, doggone it, I'll have to go research that and get back to ya."

And how can you say my silence means anything with regard to Obama? How do you know what my silence means?

I have not participated in a discussion here because I find you and the others here against him as being against him from the day he took office. You revel in approval ratings dropping (see above). How can you argue with that kind of attitude? I want to give him time. Do I have some disappointments? Maybe. Do I have moments of admiration? Maybe. At this point, I'm just rooting for success because I think his success means our success. And heck, this country needs it.

Palin is not stupid. That much is clear and any actual claims/evidence can be turned right back around onto the opposing party. However, I don't trust her, and I certainly don't respect a large portion of her social viewpoints.

The part where she *completely* lost me was during the VP debate where she kept winking at the camera. Maybe it's just me, but when someone is talking about what they would do and winks...I view that as "I'm saying one thing, but thinking another." To each their own, I suppose.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I think I understand (on some level) why you HATE her, I just don't understand why you think that should be a valid reason to criticize her for things you don't criticize Democrats for, or why you expect it to be some kind of actual argument.

I refuse to believe that you're so naive as to think this doesn't describe the leadership in the Democratic party. And I really hope you can back up your statement that the Republican Party at large is the one pushing the silly birth certificate issue. I think we might have had one Congressman or two and a handful of silly protesters and chain-email-senders. Certainly no more of them than there are wackos buying into 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're not part of any serious discussion. But, again, on the left such people are fringe groups, and on the right they're apparently indicative of the entire party. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Even if everything you were to say is true, isn't the quote above very revealing? How much of this is about Obama being good, and how much of it is just about hating the idea of Republicans winning (or hating the idea of them altogether)?

You talk about winning at all costs, but that's exactly what it looks like when people refuse to speak out against Obama even when they obviously disagree with some of the things he's doing. They're deciding that winning (or not letting Republicans win) is too important to undermine him. That's exactly the same thing you're saying you hate.

Some of them are like that, but some of them are just flat-out stupid. Again, I can list some of them if you like, but I'm sure you've heard them. And let's not pretend an inability to keep secrets or stay on point as Vice President is somehow unimportant, anyway. He's already contradicting Obama's statements to other world leaders, for crying out loud, and the campaign repeatedly emphasized just how important our posture to the rest of the world was. You're letting him off...why? Because you think he's smart and ethical, even if this doesn't translate into competency? Isn't that personality-based allegiance?

I don't know. It's what I think, and it's not as if I don't have reasons. The difference post-election has been a complete 180, and some of the contradictions are so blatant that they can't be spun.

If anything, I'm almost giving you credit: I'm assuming you really must not like some of these obvious mistakes and contradictions. It'd be worse if I assumed that you were incapable of grasping them or willing to persuade yourself that they didn't exist.

I know you've expressed your distaste for some things that Bush did, which Obama has also done, so I imagine you must have some disappointments, yes. But you never express them. At all.

Of course I revel in approval ratings dropping; I think some truly terrible, damaging ideas are being turned into policy (or may be turned into policy), so I'm extremely relieved to see more people come to the same conclusion. What else would I do? Bemoan that ideas I believe in seem to be somewhat more accepted now?

I've been against his ideas since he took office, but I absolutely thought there was a chance he'd move to the center and govern as an economic centrist, as Clinton did eventually -- and I hope he does. But so far the evidence has been diametrically opposed to this possibility. Besides, I was "against" him as soon as I heard about his policies during the campaign, but we had many discussions then, too. The only things that have changed is a) he won, so that's no longer in danger, and b) he's run his administration in a significantly different way than he said he would. That's all that really separates the daily discussions from the total lack of same.

Believe it or not, lots of conservatives are rooting against him for the same kind of reason: they think his failure is the best thing for us right now. That certainly describes me.

I believe you think his success politically will translate into success for America in general. I also believe that you're willing to take almost all of the economic theory and policy on faith in the man himself. I just don't think the latter is a good way to base one's support, and I don't think we should censor ourselves to avoid ever undermining politicians on our own side.

Guys, guys, can't we smooth this out with a couple of beers?

Genius.

By the by, I agree with MattJohn, and I'll go a step fruther: I think we should do away with the meme of almost every national politician being "stupid." Let's draw a big, fat line between being stupid, and saying something stupid.

I'm sure it's possible and, in some cases, true. But by and large the amount of scrutiny these people have had to go through is going to exclude any genuinely stupid people. It just doesn't happen. I can believe they're terrible in front of a microphone, bad on TV, or just freeze up sometimes, but I don't even think the Murtha's and Biden's the world are actually stupid.

Really, if you doubt the same about Palin, go look up some clips of her on Kudlow and Co. talking about energy policy before the campaign. Without the sudden spotlight of the world on her, she's far more relaxed and articulate, and she clearly knows the issue inside and out. I don't see how this would even be possible if she were half as inept as people like to suggest. Ditto for Bush and the things he's accomplished, and yes, the same goes for Biden and the place he finds himself in.

Exactly, so why I should even discuss Obama here? You are "against him." Not even a year into his term. And why? Because you believe that no matter what, his policies are bad and will not help. You have ideas that are so entrenched inside you, Yoda, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss this with you. That was made apparent to me during the election. I talked over and over, again and again, explained myself in every way possible, and it was always the same thing -- I don't know what I'm talking about and I can't possibly have an opinion on the economy because you are smart about those things and Obama and I are not.

Er, yea. I guess I addressed this already.

And this thread was about Palin. And again, you try to bring it to a discussion about Obama. You're reveling in his struggles and I find that distasteful. There was a time when people of differing opinions and theologies actually supported the President to reach compromise and have success. That's not what Republicans do. They haven't since 1993.

And so Yoda, what democrats am I supposed to criticize because they're just like Palin? Sorry, you lost me.

Further, I cannot disagree with you more -- I can easily criticize Democrats but they have never been in lock step and over the top with their rhetoric and desire to WIN at all costs. They don't act the same way. I find it amazing that you think they're the same. If anything, the Dems are whimps half the time because they don't look at the world the way Conservatives do. Conservatives believe it is their way or the highway. Democrats actually stop and think about it. Liberals and moderates are different creatures. Face it, to be a conservative is to be someone who doesn't want change. That's the definition. So they go about doing things much differently than the liberal or moderate.

And you have to know at some level, I'm right. That's why Republicans have suffered in recent elections. Rhetoric matters. Hateful rhetoric matters. Obstructionist rhetoric matters. People want change. The problem now is that change is always harder than staying the same.

And ever since Obama took office, they have done NOTHING to solve America's problems. All they say is that Obama's ideas won't work. Period. End of story. Let's keep going the way we've been going. It's fine. Besides, Obama is so wrong we HAVE to defeat him. Nothing about actually working together. Oh no, that's won't do!

You even said it yourself. His "failure" is the "best thing."

And the beers comment? LOL!!!! This coming from people that supported Bush! The man people wanted to have a beer with??? That's rich.

And back to Palin. Ok, let's not call her "stupid." How about "ridiculous?"

Sarah Palin was a horrid choice from the start. She was picked because she was female and they tried to steal away the Clinton votes. I guess if you're mayor of a small town in Alaska for a few years then Governor for 2, you're next in line to be the Vice President.

She doesn't know her own nations history. When defending the phrase 'one nation under God' she was quoted as saying "If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance" I'm not American and even I know that the Pledge was written in 1892 and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were dead. A quick search function even shows that the phrase 'one nation under God' was added later in 1954. Is she afraid to 'get with the times?" Is everything that was good for the founding fathers good for her today? That would be a bad thing to say.


Throughout the election, she came off as a joke to me. I never took what she said seriously. I respect McCain, but Palin is another story.

She has no experience, and no one knew anything about her, that is the bottom line.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I'm talking with someone who constantly generalizes about all Republicans and has said they will "never" support them. It doesn't get more "entrenched" than that.

I believe his policies are bad because -- wait, this one's a shocker -- I believe they're bad! Do you really think if he announced, tomorrow, that he was cutting taxes across the board, I wouldn't like it? Really? If he cut the capital gains tax and signed sweeping free trade legislation, I'd criticize it? Not a chance. I have no idea what these reminders that I disagree with Obama are supposed to demonstrate.

And I'm sorry, but I'm a bit tired of people pretending they don't want to discuss these things because they think I've already made up my mind. That didn't bother you (or anyone else) before, and even if I had made up my mind, that has nothing to do with defending an idea. Nobody expects to convince the person they're arguing with -- if we ever convince anyone, it'd be the people reading. The fact that I believe this or that is a complete non-sequitur as a reason to forego discussion.

I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a point here, or if you just don't like the idea. The simple fact is that a lot of people have strong opinions about economics, yet no knowledge of it. And I'm not talking about getting a doctorate here, I'm talking about five minutes of research from time to time, or the occasional light discussion about economic theory. I'm talking about just sitting down and thinking about how people and business will react to one policy or another, and comparing that to the rhetoric.

I don't know if you do this, but you've said things which seem to imply that you don't think it's important or entirely necessary. The funny thing is, I think it's actually quite reasonable to suggest that it's not always worth the time to do such things. But it's not reasonable to go ahead and have strong opinions, anyway. Opinions should be based in reason and evidence. Most of us know and understand this, but for some reason a lot of people completely drop these prerequisites when talking about economics.

I'm not sure how you want to define "revel." Apparently mentioning it in any kind of positive way qualifies? I don't think I've done anything reveling-ier than that. And I fail to see how this behavior is different from people talking about Bush's sinking approval ratings (which you never had a problem with, to my memory).

And again, with the generalizations. It blows my mind to hear you talk about all Republicans as if they were all the same. Generalizations are an actual logical fallacy. That's not a matter of opinion: it is actually false to speak this broadly about any such group, for obvious reasons.

Where's the evidence? Where is this coming from? A handful of anecdotes? If I produce a similar number of anecdotes of bipartisanship, would you change your mind? I don't think we've had a single discussion about Republicans where you haven't almost immediately expressed outright rage and started tossing incredibly strong words around. That's not the kind of thing that happens with reasoned dissent, that's just anger. You seem to genuinely hate Republicans, or whatever you've decided to believe Republicans are.

Serious question: can you honestly claim to be forming reasonable, evidence-based conclusions while exhibiting this level of anger and generalization? And if not, doesn't that mean it's possible that your characterization of the party isn't fair or accurate?

Nobody's just like anyone. But you cite saying silly things and the like as evidence of her lack of qualification, and you make excuses for the same level of inanity in guys like Biden. Forget treating them just like Palin -- I'm not that unrealistic -- I'm just looking for some level of acknowledgement. Right now one of them horrifies you, and the other doesn't even warrant a mention.

The "definition" is utterly inaccurate. Free trade in the modern sense is a newer idea than protectionism, yet the overwhelming number of conservatives are for it. Social Security Privatization and School Choice are radically new ideas, and represent major change, and enjoy far more support in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Both parties have many things they want to change, and many things they want to keep. The notion that one party is for the status quo and the other is for change is total nonsense. It's a linguistic relic, not reflective of any undercurrent of either ideology.

Regarding the rest: I can't fathom how you've managed to believe that the Republicans are win-at-all-costs and the Democrats are not. I don't think they're the same at all, but they are absolutely the same in their desire to win elections. It takes mental gymnastics of stunning complexity to believe otherwise. I can only assume that it has something to do with Republicans generally seeming more legislatively organized (given your "lock step" comment), but that's not even remotely the same thing as being cutthroat.

This is transient, just as it was transient when the Republicans were in power. They had sweeping majorities just three years ago, if you recall, and now we have the reverse. This is how the political tide goes, and trying to read some broad anti-Republican trend into it is a reach. There will be ebb and flow, as always.

Besides, wouldn't the above qualify as "reveling" in Republican defeats? Why is it some sort of defeatist sin to mention Obama's sinking numbers, but not the same to try to make a point with Republican election losses? I know you reveled when Obama won: you did it publicly more than once, and far more often over the fact that Bush was gone.

It's easy to be gracious and even-handed when you don't feel strongly about something. I imagine it's very difficult to see what you've done as "reveling" -- if you really believe in it that thoroughly, it probably just feels like the right thing to do. But that's what objectivity's supposed to be, isn't it? It's not worth anything if it gets tossed just because you feel strongly about something.

Right, because Republicans are supposed to put forward sweeping legislation with minorities in the House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House.

Republicans are opposing the policies because they don't like them. This is perfectly sensible and exactly how a minority behaves. Am I missing something? Were Democrats lining up to get behind Bush's policies in 2005? That's not how I remember it. I remember Bush proposing sweeping change to Social Security, and Democrats shooting it down without an alternative proposal. Is this or is this not a perfect embodiment of the kind of thing you just described?

Also, the idea that a failure to consent to Obama's proposals equates to the idea that everything is fine is simply false. Nobody says everything is fine. The only people saying anything even close to that are Obama and Biden, who've both said that the stimulus "worked" or "did what it was intended to do."

No, the failure to implement the ideas is, because I don't think they'll work. I'm not sure what's supposed to be controversial about this. I think bad ideas are...bad...so I hope they don't become policy.

Better.

As far as her being "stupid," I personally think it is intentional stupidity, similar to the Bush swagger. I never thought the Bush administration, or the man himself to be stupid, but to present themselves as "average" to reflect what they believed the masses to be. Essentially, how can you debate someone on the issues if they claim ignorance? Politically speaking, the Bush administration was a success because they were able to push their agenda and stay in power, not likely that could be accomplished by those believed to be incompetent. The only thing they really under-performed on was acting as if they cared what the public thought, most Presidents to some extent act as if they genuinely care about the public's opinion. Cheney's famous; "so what" remark highlights this.