Originally posted by Lidane

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Smart move if she is planning a run on 2012.

 

No it isn't. She's resigning 2+ years before the first primaries ever happen. That doesn't make a damned bit of sense by any standard.

Some kind of serious scandal is about to hit her, and hard. Why the hell else would she resign on the Friday before 4th of July weekend when no one is paying attention, then give vague answers to any questions about why?

Maybe she is just sick of politics and wants to live a normal life, if that's possible

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by popinjay

 

I;m just not sure how being a quitter is going to play in America.

It won't, and if she participates in the Republican primaries, she'll be surrounded with nothing but governors who've all completed terms or are still in office.

The whole inexperience deal didn't matter as a VP-nominee, but you'd figure she'd have an interest in what the whole worry was about with the "one heartbeak away from the presidency" scare. It was her inexperience; and quitting the way she is now does the absolute opposite of what she needed to accomplish.

I doubt she'll be a candidate for anything again; regardless of whether or not something else surfaces to explain this.

Yup, I can just picture her in a debate with Mitt Romney, the guy that turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, and ran the state of Massachussets, the guy that she beat out for the GOP VP slot. The guy that takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

His first point will be whether she realizes the White House is a four year commitment........

Personally, if she wants to be President, she should consider changing parties. 

Originally posted by Zindaihas

And finally, if she does have aspirations for president in 2012, I wouldn't be so quick to count her out there either.  Yes, it is a gamble to resign as governor, but it's far from a death sentence.  I think being unconventional is more of an asset at this time in politics than ever before.  The country is more polarized now than ever before and that opens the possiblity for someone with a loyal following to emerge victorious.  I love how the people who are calling this such a stupid move are also the same ones who are trumpeting the current state of the Republican Party.  Well if the Republican Party is such a mess right now (and I don't discount that it is very disorganized atm), then what good does it do for her to remain one of its primary figures?  This move could actually make her more popular among independents and those who are fed up with both parties, a group that is rather large right now.  And if anyone thinks that this move is going to make her supporters forget about her or that the media is going to leave her alone, they are mistaken.  If anything, after the 2010 elections, the cries from her supporters to get back into politics are going to be even louder.  You know the old saying, "always leave your audience wanting more."  And the press is still going to be following her every move, if they are newsworthy.

The country is not more polarized than ever before, it only has more people involved. That's what Obama campaigned for. Do you honestly believe that he was sending a message to only the people who agreed with his position? Obama's goal was to get everyone involved in their communities, as well as the political process. I'd say he has been quite successful. So the people who oppose his agenda have rallied just like the people who support it, no surprise there. While you may believe that those who oppose his policies are a significant wedge, they really aren't. Obama is pushing the policies (albeit, to a lessened degree) that got him elected by a comfortable margin. If you look at the myriad of polling data that inevitably follows any policy change, they consistently show the same support that got Obama elected. Nothing has changed. The conservative voices get louder and louder, but you're still just talking amongst yourselves. Nobody else is listening.

More wishful thinking. Sarah Palin will never be popular with independents, unless she completely changes her platform, something she may be prepared to do for a national office. Who knows, maybe she plans to run in the mid-terms (although I doubt it). The other possibility is she plans to devote a few years to learning about all the issues that were out of her depth during the last election, then possibly make a run in 2016.

In the end, I don't know or care what's in her future. I still doubt that her resignation was motivated by scandal, though. I really don't think there's a stone left unturned. Then again, I still haven't seen Obama's birth certificate either, so I don't expect the skepticism to halt in the near future.

---

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 

It brings to mind something similiar to what Richard Nixon said after he lost the 1962 California governor's race.  Just think how upset the press is going to be now.  It won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore.
This country gets what it deserves.  Bring on nationalized healthcare.  Bring on Cap and Trade.  Is it even worth fighting anymore?

---

Interesting to see your philosphy is that of your idols; Sarah Palin."Things aren't going my way. Life is hard. What's the use? I quit." No wonder you admire her so much.

Your Nixon "memory" reminds me of another Nixon memory of something he said:

---

Nixon admitted that the he had let down the country and said, "I did abuse the power I had as president."[189] He said that at the time of his resignation, he was crippled and that "I said things that were not true." He revealed, "I brought myself down. I gave them a sword and they stuck it in. And they twisted it with relish. And, I guess, if I'd been in their position, I'd have done the same thing."

---

This is what Palin did. She let Alaska down by quitting with eighteen months to go after claiming she was tough enough to face world leaders, terrorists and the Russians, when she couldn't even face the media in her own state. She brought herself down. She gave the media a sword and they stuck it in and twisted it with relish.

I personally find her political rise and fall quite funny and I am personally enjoying every minute of this. :)

---

Originally posted by Lidane

---

Originally posted by Cleffy

The US isn't going to be a country any longer after Cap and Trade is passed. 

---

That's a bunch of melodramatic hysteria. This country has gone through a lot more than that and survived.
I didn't bother reading further.

---

Unfortunately, this is how most conservative Republicans learned to communicate.

They have to give you the "hard sell" worst case scenario by talking up something as an imminent threat or danger to you and your way of life. This is done to grab your attention. They learn this from talking points on Fox.

They do this because usually what follows has nothing factual and usually either makes no sense, or is not relevant to what anyone is talking about. Then you are now talking about what they wanted to switch the discussion to.

Cap and Trade has nothing to do with Sarah Palin resigning nor is the U.S. still being "a country" after it, but it's the prime ploy to get you off of a hurtful subject and onto something else; Sarah Palin and why she abruptly quit her job she SWORE to do.

Just a tiresome tactic.

Wow, that just raised the average IQ of US governors by 10 points!

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Fishermage

Sounds like she's got a body in the trunk or something -- what a weird way to resign. It sounds like she first has to take care of something -- or someone -- and then if it all works out maybe run for President. Strange and interesting though.

I liked her at the very beginning, and I am sure I still agree with what might be her core, economically speaking. I've been liking her less and less over the past several months, and consider her pretty useless for the republican party unless shew gets a library chip in her head, or learns how to use a teleprompter like Dear Leader.

If I'm gonna vote for a wacko, it's gonna be Ron Paul.

 

Why do you like her less now? Because of what the MSM has said? They have done their utmost to destroy her. She has been in the news constantly since running for VICE PRESIDENT. Does anyone even know who is VP now?! She is going broke defending herself. Blueberry and I, maybe others, said she would be attacked but I didn't even think it would be this bad. She is being attacked because she is a threat to the left. The left must destroy all opposition.  Never trust the lieing, facist, totalitarian, asinine leftest.  Never!

 

It's pretty funny you accuse the left of being fascists while you're defending a person who wants to:

- Put creationism in science class
- Is opposed to abortion
- Wants to ban gay marriage

So who is the fascist now eh?

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Fishermage

Sounds like she's got a body in the trunk or something -- what a weird way to resign. It sounds like she first has to take care of something -- or someone -- and then if it all works out maybe run for President. Strange and interesting though.

I liked her at the very beginning, and I am sure I still agree with what might be her core, economically speaking. I've been liking her less and less over the past several months, and consider her pretty useless for the republican party unless shew gets a library chip in her head, or learns how to use a teleprompter like Dear Leader.

If I'm gonna vote for a wacko, it's gonna be Ron Paul.

 

Why do you like her less now? Because of what the MSM has said? They have done their utmost to destroy her. She has been in the news constantly since running for VICE PRESIDENT. Does anyone even know who is VP now?! She is going broke defending herself. Blueberry and I, maybe others, said she would be attacked but I didn't even think it would be this bad. She is being attacked because she is a threat to the left. The left must destroy all opposition.  Never trust the lieing, facist, totalitarian, asinine leftest.  Never!

 

nah, I've liked her less and less over the past many months mostly because of what she has SAID. As you know, I'm not really a conservative and actually a pretty hardcore libertarian, and i am finding more and more emphasising less and less libertarianish leanings. She is reaching out too much to a  part of the party that needs to be ditched -- social conservatives, necause in order to be the party of limited government you must be consistent or else you are a loser -- that is how Ronald Reagan's legacy must be updated.

The "scandals" and the attack squads only make me sympathetic.

I profoundly disagree with her theology, and even if that's not a deciding factor in anything, I REALLY don't like voting for true believer end timers. I don't want any world leaders honestly thinking we live in the last days.

It was a hard decision to come to, because I like her. She convinced me however not to want to vote for her.

I am always open to having my mind changed about her. When I see her becoming more libertarian and less conservative, I'll be all for her.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Maybe she is just sick of politics and wants to live a normal life, if that's possible

Then why not just say that she's had it with politics, she'll serve out the rest of her term as Governor, then fade away quietly into private life? If she'd said that, no one would have cared. It's that she's bolting out of office 18 months before her term ends, and for the flimsiest of excuses. No, she resigned this abruptly for a reason. Governors don't just up and quit unless they have to, typically due to some sort of major issue. Sure, there have been recalls, impeachments, and forced removals from office over the years, but resignations are actually quite rare.

Before Palin's stunt yesterday, the most recent resignations (at least that I can think of) were for bigger reasons-- Jim McGreevey (NJ)  and Eliot Spitzer (NY) due to sex scandals, Jim Guy Tucker (Arkansas) due to the Whitewater scandal, Ella Grasso (CT) back in 1980 after being diagnosed with cancer, Marvin Mandel (Maryland) in 1977 after being convicted of mail fraud and racketeering, Huey Long (Louisiana) in 1932 after he was elected to the Senate, James Ferguson (Texas) in 1917 in an attempt to avoid a conviction by the Texas legislature, who had impeached him due to a criminal indictment (it didn't work, BTW-- the Texas courts upheld his impeachment and barred him from state office permanently), and John Quitman (Mississippi) back in 1851 after being indicted for violating American neutrality laws with respect to Cuba. There could well be others, but these are the only ones that quickly come to mind.

With the exception of Long, who resigned because he'd gotten elected to a higher office, and Grasso, who left for health reasons, the rest are due to some sort of scandal or criminal proceedings. Unless Palin is going to come out and say that she or someone in her family has had some kind of serious health scare, which would justify her leaving office like this, then the next logical assumption is that there is some sort of scandal or indictment coming and she wants out before it hits. That's how it's happened in the past, and it's the only thing that makes any damned bit of sense now. She was pushed out the door by someone or something big that's coming.

I don't buy any other excuses, such as wanting more privacy. That doesn't fly. And the idea that she could still make a credible run for the White House when she can't even finish her first term as Governor of a state with less people than Austin, TX is laughable.

---

Originally posted by Lidane

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

Maybe she is just sick of politics and wants to live a normal life, if that's possible

---

Then why not just say that she's had it with politics, she'll serve out the rest of her term as Governor, then fade away quietly into private life?

---

Because that's exactly what the liberals and terrorists would be EXPECTING, hehe. She's got it figured out and said so in her press conference.

Palin is doing a "end around" as she said.

Palin said she's "passing the basketball" to the Lt. Governor of Alaska because the ball is in danger. So she says she's now going to run AROUND the full court pressure that was coming after her and towards the basket, while now the full court press goes after the Lt. Governor because he now has the basketball.

Once she's under the basket, the Lt. Governor will then pass the basketball BACK to Palin, and she'll shoot and score. At least that's her plan.

If that makes as little sense to you as it makes none to me, only Palin can clarify this plan, but alas... she's not taking any questions regarding her sports analogy or her quitting.

Only thing I can think of:

1. There is something we don't know yet, like a scandal that hasn't been revealed or

2. She is bat shit crazy

3. She just got fed up with being in the spot light, and didn't have the guts to say that, but instead made up some vague bullshit about basketball.

4.

---

Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Only thing I can think of:
1. There is something we don't know yet, like a scandal that hasn't been revealed or
2. She is bat shit crazy
3. She just got fed up with being in the spot light, and didn't have the guts to say that, but instead made up some vague bullshit about basketball.
4.

---

5. All of the above.

“I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh,” quipped Republican media consultant Todd Harris.

Looks like Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski isn't happy about Palin's little stunt. She's released a statement blasting the governor for abandoning the state before her term is done:

murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm

It's also split the GOP as well:

www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

If Sarah thought she'd be greeted as a liberator of the GOP's electoral woes, she's in for a rude awakening.

Originally posted by Lidane

www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

 

"...Miami Vice of American Politics..." haha

Let it go.

Originally posted by Gameloading

It's pretty funny you accuse the left of being fascists while you're defending a person who wants to:

- Put creationism in science class
- Is opposed to abortion
- Wants to ban gay marriage

So who is the fascist now eh?

Sorry Gameloading, but I don't think you ever learned the truth about her and only heard the slanders.  Considering the left continually pursues fascist legislation, Sarah Palin did not pursue that legislation.  It was a slander that she did when she was running for VP and never contracted.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Gameloading

It's pretty funny you accuse the left of being fascists while you're defending a person who wants to:

- Put creationism in science class
- Is opposed to abortion
- Wants to ban gay marriage

So who is the fascist now eh?

 

Sorry Gameloading, but I don't think you ever learned the truth about her and only heard the slanders.  Considering the left continually pursues fascist legislation, Sarah Palin did not pursue that legislation.  It was a slander that she did when she was running for VP and never contracted.

Sarah Palin does believe Creationism should be in public schools, is opposed to abortion and is against gay marriage. 

This isn't "slander", these are her opinions. Feel free to look it up.

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

That's a load of crap!  If she has put a piece of legislation forward then she believes in that legislation.  It doesn't matter how "fervently" she does it... she better believe in what she's proposing.  Because, if she doesn't, then she's a hypocrite.   And, as for  your last statement, unless you have some actual proof to back it up, it is nothing more than more ultra-conservative fear-mongering BS.  Please keep the BS to yourself.

Sarah Palin seems to be the Britney Spears of the political world.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she did say that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

They are bad because they restrict what other people can do and infringes on the seperation of church and state. Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?

Or is it only free for people with christian morals and values?
 

I think the argument was about introducing fascist forms of government.  Someone introducing 1 bill about what she believes in and leaving it at that isn't forcing fascist policy.  Now re-introducing the same bill a dozen times, or introducing 1500 page bills at 3am the day they are to be enacted is very much fascist policy.  To put it in a greater perspective, over a decade ago she introduced a bill that would ban gay marriage.  While governor she has given Alaskans even more freedom and relief from taxes and regulations.  I think that far outwieghs 1 bill as far as freedom is concerned.  I think the concept of gay marriage is much more complicated then you give it credit as can be seen by the multi-page arguments and bickering on the subject.

---

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

---

Originally posted by Gameloading

---

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

---

 
She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

---

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

---

If you start teaching creationism in school you need to either start teaching all other religion's viewpoints on the creation of universe just as much or else it would pretty much be propaganda.