Palin steps down

JediJD said:
Freedom of speech is a valuable right, and Bill, you are no doubt a really bright guy. Just keep in mind that some possibly equally very bright, very productive, very job creating, very liberty oriented people...some of whom are not even rabid "right to lifer's" or members of the "Moral Majority"...believe that a little more Sarah Palin would be a huge improvement over the procession of self serving political rocket scientists that we have been handed during the current and former administrations.

Salud!
Click to expand...

I am totally for the everyday man or woman getting into office and doing away with career politicians. I just dont see her as "strong" enough to rise to the presidential or even vp levels of government.

It just occurs to me that her meeting Putin or Chavez would be a clusterF...they would eat her alive.

I just dont like quitters.
 
skibum said:
Bill... I've got to tell you, I think that you and the other people who think like you are just out to lunch.

You said that you didn't like politicians because (paraphrasing a little here :grin:) "they all suck".

Here comes someone who isn't a "politician" and you get all over her because she is a lousy politician. :huh:

So... who would YOU like to see run for President? Give me a name, homeboy.
Click to expand...

She definitely fits the qualifications as far as a "non-politician" or everyday man/woman. However, just because she is what I would consider right for our country going on into the future (ie lack of people who spend their entire lives in the government offices) she fails on being able to do the job.

When I say I dislike career politicians and want to see everyday people in these offices, they STILL have to be able to do the job. I dont see it with Palin.

Who would I like to see run for President? Well, as examples, within the confines of CSR itself, I see a couple of people here I think could do a good job. While I may not agree with their stands on some things, geez, Gary is a wicked smart guy, Jedi seems pretty on the ball, Webster is someone that could probably handle the task...these are all men I feel have conviction, intelligence and are still basically you and I.
 
Mick & Denise said:
Bill, I have shared your views on other posts but not with this one. I still believe she has done the right thing. In fact, I think she may have gone further than most normal minded people as far as dealing with the morons she had to work with. If you ask people in Alaska she is a fine person with good family values. I think she finally just got fed up with dealing with liberal minded idiots that have not ever actually worked a day in their lives and tell people how we should run our lives. I don't think I could ever deal with the normal politicians without wanting to strangle a few of them. She went further than I ever could. Thats my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Family values does not equal ability to run the US.

Look, Palin had 15 months still to run Alaska. She didnt want to be a "lame duck." Huh? That makes sense? So thats what she considers HERSELF? How are you a lame duck in the middle of your term?

Her words " I feel it is my duty to avoid the unproductive, typical, politics as usual, lame duck session in one’s last year in office. How does that benefit you?"

What? WHY would it be unproductive? Because SHE is looking in the mirror and TELLING you she will be unproductive. Doenst anyone see this point in blatant neon?

So to me, she is someone who couldnt handle the pressures that come along with high office, gave up, and made a pretty speech of how hard she will work outside of government.
:smt100
 
skibum said:
So, in you guys' opinion, Palin is a dolt because she is leaving a job to move on to bigger and better things? There is absolutely no indication that she is leaving because she is unable to do the job as Governor, or that she couldn't handle the "pressure". Her job approval ratings were in the 60s, so the people of Alaska didn't run her out.

Approximately 30% of the people in the US are true "liberals", and won't like her no matter what she says or does. About 35% of the people are true "conservatives" and will back her if she is the candidate. The current strategy of claiming that she is unqualified and/or just plain stupid might work on half of the remaining 35% who are too stupid to figure out if they are liberal or conservative. It will be a hard sell for the remaining 16-17% who are true "independents" or Libertarians and will actually listen to both sides of the argument before "deciding".

Good luck with the argument, guys. I'll be voting for the "dolt" when she runs...
Click to expand...

Obama is not a dolt, just seems to have his own agenda. I was 50/50 on Obama (I will ALWAYS give a new president, regardless of political affiliation a chance once elected) and am now 70 against/30 for. So his ratings with me are dropping weekly.

Back to Palin, no indication she is leaving because she cant do the job? Come now...her speech alone gives great indication of why...she considers HERSELF a lame duck. Her own words. She can jazz it up all she wants, but she had 15 months left in her term, and bailed out when they needed her most, simply because she looked at her life, herself, and decided she couldnt go on.

To say you can do more OUTSIDE the highest office in a state is a lame excuse.

Fail.
 
Bill,

I am not sure I understand how "ordinary people" would be better than career politicians to serve in public office? (No offense to the esteemed candidates from CSR named in previous posts) So, you take a person who appears to be of high intellect and has demonstrated the ability to be successful in some field, career or business endeavor - and you pluck them out of those pursuits for what? a single term or two in office and then you what? insert them back into the private sector - which would be the only way for them to remain ordinary people and not morph into career politicians, right?

Now, let's say all of our representatives at every level of government are thrown into the job like this from the private sectors and we are constantly turning over these folks so as to continue to remain loyal to the "ordinary people" mantra and not create a whole new crop of career politicians - could these people effectively govern during their short stint at it? I really don't think so. No, career politicians is the correct and only way to get the best and brightest out of the collective pool of folks who want these jobs. The best usually rise up the ladder in both public and private jobs - that is what defines a career.
 
billandamy said:
Obama is not a dolt,
Fail.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their opinions Bill, he hasn't quite taken that right away yet, I'm of the opinion he is. He's just a puppet and his party is pulling his strings behind the curtain. Between him, Frank, and Pelosi ... it's very scary where they want to take this country. Even the Blue dogs don't think it makes sense. Hopefully they can handle all the arm-twisting that's going on that we don't see, to get them to follow the good shepherd and keep this country somewhat near the middle.

And I don't think Sarah's the dolt you think she is. I think she has a lot of what this country needs. She may not deliver it in a fashion that we're all familiar with, but I think her convictions are in the right place.
 
rabyers1 said:
Bill,

I am not sure I understand how "ordinary people" would be better than career politicians to serve in public office? (No offense to the esteemed candidates from CSR named in previous posts) So, you take a person who appears to be of high intellect and has demonstrated the ability to be successful in some field, career or business endeavor - and you pluck them out of those pursuits for what? a single term or two in office and then you what? insert them back into the private sector - which would be the only way for them to remain ordinary people and not morph into career politicians, right?

Now, let's say all of our representatives at every level of government are thrown into the job like this from the private sectors and we are constantly turning over these folks so as to continue to remain loyal to the "ordinary people" mantra and not create a whole new crop of career politicians - could these people effectively govern during their short stint at it? I really don't think so. No, career politicians is the correct and only way to get the best and brightest out of the collective pool of folks who want these jobs. The best usually rise up the ladder in both public and private jobs - that is what defines a career.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem I see. Most politicians now have a Machiavellianism type personality due to the fact that they can have a career in politics for a lifetime, almost regardless of their foibles. They seem to be a protected class, most often coming from already wealthy backgrounds or are related to in someway a politician.

I dont think its fair to compare really, any job in government to any other career, as the government has the lion's share of power and directing policy for the rest of us the most in comparison to any other entity.

Whats so bad about turn over? Here is where the true glory of elections SHOULD shine. A person interested in making run for Governor SHOULD know the CURRENT issues facing their state, and run their platform based on knowing about the subjects and office. For example, without getting into too much details of my view, the way you would get elected should be after a PUBLIC news conference/assembly or what have you, where a large group of citizens from all walks of life can ask potentials questions. As well, so can the press, and anyone else. If they dont know their issues, they arent going to survive for long. THink about this: If we had someone in a mock election on CSR, where all of us here could ask them question after question, they would either get to keep going on, or they would be failed out.

So in essence, you have someone who knows the issues, can relate to the people with the issues, become governor for a term or two (as elected) then step down. In comes new blood and we repeat the process.

The fact is, I think anyway, the current system of politicians staying forever in the system forces them to lose sight of what the every day man/woman face day to day. The longer they stay in office, the further from the common man they trod.
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem I see. Most politicians now have a Machiavellianism type personality due to the fact that they can have a career in politics for a lifetime, almost regardless of their foibles. They seem to be a protected class, most often coming from already wealthy backgrounds or are related to in someway a politician.

I dont think its fair to compare really, any job in government to any other career, as the government has the lion's share of power and directing policy for the rest of us the most in comparison to any other entity.

Whats so bad about turn over? Here is where the true glory of elections SHOULD shine. A person interested in making run for Governor SHOULD know the CURRENT issues facing their state, and run their platform based on knowing about the subjects and office. For example, without getting into too much details of my view, the way you would get elected should be after a PUBLIC news conference/assembly or what have you, where a large group of citizens from all walks of life can ask potentials questions. As well, so can the press, and anyone else. If they dont know their issues, they arent going to survive for long. THink about this: If we had someone in a mock election on CSR, where all of us here could ask them question after question, they would either get to keep going on, or they would be failed out.

So in essence, you have someone who knows the issues, can relate to the people with the issues, become governor for a term or two (as elected) then step down. In comes new blood and we repeat the process.

The fact is, I think anyway, the current system of politicians staying forever in the system forces them to lose sight of what the every day man/woman face day to day. The longer they stay in office, the further from the common man they trod.
Click to expand...

I think we see every year a good number of politicians [even at the highest levels] get bounced out of their elected posts or the political limelight for their "foibles". Think Blagojevich, Switzer, Edwards, DeLay, Jefferson, Stephens, just to name a recent few.

You have to compare careers in public office to those in the private sector - be it fair or not. Young bright folks on the doorstep to their professional futures have to make a choice between these two career paths. The relative opportunities that exist on each path to acquire power and wealth are two of the main comparative points, as well as the more altruistic desires found in both.

Turn over is fine - to a degree. As a business owner, I encourage a little of it in my own ranks to keep the fresh ideas and enthusiasm coming into the business. However, much more important are the consistent results, experience and loyal behavior that I get from my long-term folks.

Run for governor once? How many capable people who are rising up the career ladder in the private sector with goals to earn the top spot or gain the capacity to start their own business are going to take four years away from that, effectively derailing their career, to enter public office for a short time and then try to claw back into their field. That is akin to enlisting in the armed services - something done by our young people before heading down their chosen career.

I agree with your concern that some of our elected officials do indeed part ways with the needs and thinking of us, the common man. However, I think there are many more effective, intelligent, caring, understanding folks in government who know what we need and are fighting for it. For every tax, issue and entitlement program we have, you will find private folks both for and against it - politicians have to try to find the middle ground.
 
Obama is not a dolt
Click to expand...

Palin sure scares the crap out of all the non-dolts. The non-dolts sure spend a lot of time worrying about Palin. Must be a reason...
 
just thumb through the healthcare bill. A bike path in Nantucket? Union pensions? Come on. You take out all of the pork and this bill will not have the support to pass. I write my reps about once a month to tell them they are fired.
 
mike, agreed, the healthcare bill they keep trying to pass is a joke.just another insult so pork filled, that it should be deep fried and served with sweet and sour.

just like people sticking up for the scumbags in washington is a joke. they all need to go. keep calling and writing now, get rid of them when the term is up. don't cry how they "lost their way" or some crap, how politics can't be compared to any other "career". it can't. "politics....from "poli" the latin word for many" and "Tics"...small bloodsucking creatures. the "career" they chose lets them be wrong EVERY TIME and keep getting re-elected by brain dead dried out morons who seem to think the "d" or "r" behind their name means jack s&%t.

g.r.i.p. folks. put down the f&%$#ng kool aid, and get rid of incumbent politicians
 
I always say the best two "careers" in life are weathermen and politicians. In either case, no matter how often you are wrong, people keep coming back to hear what you say.

Ill never agree that career politicians are the way it should be. Ill stick to my thoughts that everyday men and women get in and out. It is what our forefathers envisioned for our country and what worked for a long time until the government discovered the sheep will fall into line and just keep on voting the same clones in time and time again.

G. Washington is turning in his grave that people accept career politicians today.

Obama sucks, Palin would have been worse, and still the beat drums on as we argue both, all the while they keep us occupied until the next fixed election of another person who most likely came from a wealthy background with their own agenda and worse, favors to pay back to get there.

Why are there only 2 parties after all of these years? Think about that. Why do they continually sling mud at each other instead of working together? Think deep about tactics, and misdirection, and making you choose sides. It's a ruse; a maze, and we are the rats trying to sniff out the cheese.

/rant
 
bill;

i've never felt so close to you my brother, as i do right now.:smt038 the 2 party system is a joke, and Arlen Specter is the punchline. term limits, checks and balances, these things went away when there became no competition (ironically, like socialized medicine system that they want to force onto us.)

the media demonizes people of different religions (Romney) different viewpoints (Paul), different previous careers (Perot) and continues to trumpet wonderful politicians (Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Dole, the list of vomitrocity goes on and on, but i can actually taste bile, and i think it's time to stop.

stand up and take back your country. do it for your kids. have you seen the deficit? it's repugnant.

enough already....vote 'em all out!
 
jakebrake - So when you go to the booth and cast your votes each year [alongside all of us brain dead morons] who do you vote for "none of the above"?
 
actually rab, i usually look for the non -incumbent. i'm stuck with that p.o.s. arelen specter who changes his affiliation so he can get re-elected.

this past presidential was enough to make me sick. you had two people who basically hate the american people. the offerings are just getting worse. i can't stomach the hildebeast, but i trust her more than obama. mccain? eeeeccchhh. the man has made statements about immigration that make me actually want to beat him.

until the d's and r's get a wake up call, this is who we'll be stuck with over and over and over. it's like groundhog election day. do any of these people represent you? really?

ross perot made a better choice for me in the past....twice.

best person (man woman black white etc.)period.

i think i would have voted for the antichrist over these two. at least i know where he stands.

i'm an independent. there is no real constitutionist affiliation when it comes to registering. liberterian is as close as you can get.

my guy got knocked out in the primary.
 
Haven't been to the bilge in awhile and thought this was an interesting subject. As an Alaskan this is how I see it:

I support and know the Palins. My first experience with Sarah was when she was mayor of Wasilla. I was totally against the City of Wasilla and their 2% sales tax. I was against her position, but she was no non-sense about it. Wasilla needed a police department and a sales tax was the only way to do it, because the Alaska State Troopers at the time were cutting back. Most folks agreed to the tax so they could have police protection. She also straighten out the City by getting rid of the everyday corrupt politicians. She did the same as Governor of both parties.

When she ran for the Republican nomination for Governor, she was running against a well know, long time career politician (long time Senator), Frank Murkowski. He was a pompous a$$! She ran all over him. When she won the nomination the Republican Party refused to support her! She just had beaten their favorite son.

She went into Juneau and cleaned house. She made a good Governor. Told the oil companies that they did not run Alaska, that Alaskan residents did. She told PETA and other Environment Activist Waco Terrorist to take a hike out of Alaska. We run our state the way we want to run it. It is actually one of the only states where as a resident you can call the Governor’s office and actually speak to the Governor.

Alaska is not like any place you have ever been. Our brand of politics is a little different and L48 folks see us as a little strange. Up here, subsistence hunting and fishing, oil and gas production, the States rights v Federal are big issues here. OMG she eats moose for dinner!!! To us that is normal but not for most in the L48 it is not. Sled dogs and Snowmachines are everyday life, but some see it as odd.

One thing you all seem to have over looked it the cost of frivolous ethics complaints against her. Under Alaska law, if a complaint is levied against you as a public official, you have to pay for your own legal defense. The Palins were in debt of about $700K.

Now for some on CSR that maybe a drop in the bucket. I know for me, it would be life as I know it ending. The law is being changed to where state funds can be used to defend state officials and if the complaint is without merit then the person that filed the complaint will pay all costs.

I think she should have stayed, but I can also understand why she got out. Does she have bigger plans, I hope so and I also hope she educates herself on the tough L48 politics. Alaskans are furiously independent and we tend to protect that. I am surprised at the Palin haters and that they don’t have a clue what she is all about. In the L48, I see a bunch of sheep.

She has done a lot of good for us up here. Maybe she will run, maybe not. If she does, she has my vote. And no, I can't see Russia from my front door, but I have seen it from Nome....

Just an Alaskan defending what is Alaskan.
 
Tom,

Thanks for sharing the perspective of someone on the ground in your state. You give some good reasons why Sarah probably withdrew from the position much sooner than she might have otherwise. I read about those lawsuits earlier in the year, but don't think I wholely appreciated the sum total dollar cost for the Palins. I think we all expect politicians to have to "step up and take the heat" emotionally and reputation-wise when they are in public office, but $700 grand worth of costs defending yourself? That would be a life-changer for me as well. I wouldn't imagine any changes to the laws in AK at this point, would retroactively help relieve the financial burden from the Palins, would they?
 
rabyers1 said:
Tom,

Thanks for sharing the perspective of someone on the ground in your state. You give some good reasons why Sarah probably withdrew from the position much sooner than she might have otherwise. I read about those lawsuits earlier in the year, but don't think I wholely appreciated the sum total dollar cost for the Palins. I think we all expect politicians to have to "step up and take the heat" emotionally and reputation-wise when they are in public office, but $700 grand worth of costs defending yourself? That would be a life-changer for me as well. I wouldn't imagine any changes to the laws in AK at this point, would retroactively help relieve the financial burden from the Palins, would they?
Click to expand...


Don't know, as our legislature only meets for 90-days starting in January. I know she has a legal fund that, but you guessed it, was taken to court saying she could not use it to pay some of her legal fees. The law suit was recently defeated, so we will see.

The Alaska Constitution was set up to have the legislature and Governor as "part-time" politicians. The intent in 1958 was that a representative would keep their civilian job and serve Alaskans only part time.

For instance: The Palin haters are quick to point out she was wearing a jacket which had patches on it that were supporting her husband’s run in the 2500 mile snowmachine race called the "Irondog" run. It was -30f. Yep, it got to be that ridiculous. But there was an ethics complaint filed for that subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,248
Messages
1,429,274
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top