JPF Home Page Forums Sara Palin quits

What is going on there? Just fed up with politics or getting ready for 2012?

You know as much as we do, Everett. Maybe she's just tired of the criticism. Wouldn't blame her a bit for that. Between the media, members of the "old boys club" and the Lettermen's of the world she and her family have just taken a beating.

She'd be looking at two years of trying to govern the state of Alaska with the national, state, and local political machines doing everything they can do to bring her down, plus media from all over the world trying to damage her by attacking her and her family personally. I don't think she could get as much done for Alaska as if she hadn't become a national figure.

Unless another shoe drops, some scandal or problem in her administration or life, my guess is that she'll get a radio or tv show, write books, and make millions on a speaking tour.

And I hope she does. I hope she gets so rich she can buy the Presidency. We all know it can be done now.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I hope she hires a bunch of political geeks to teach her how to address the world as a statesman. How to sidestep political questions and then in about Eight years runs for President and kicks some liberal left wing ass. While she's at it she can stomp the good ol' boy GOP butt into the ground, too.

Then I hope she gives them the money to build the bridge to nowhere so the folks can drive to the airport instead of taking a ferry.

I'm guessing door #2 Everett. {Can you say P.I.L.F?} hee hee!

Me with Mike and Bill. Hey, maybe she'd do Saturday Night Live? We *know* she can do that...

And I myself would like to see her as President.

Joe

And this wouldn't happen (magnified by 10) if she was President?

I think she shot herself in the foot with this, unless she has a really good reason. It will certainly be a huge issue if she runs for President. Quit your governor term with two years left and then run for President? Sheesh, even the least cynical folks would wonder about that.....

Scott

Yeah I think that would be a terrible thing to do.
Be kinda like getting elected to a United States Senate Seat then doing Nothing for your first term except run for President. And that being your ONLY Federal level United States Government experience. 2 years as a Senator. No executive experience.
And it shows.

Sheesh the Double standards are just sad.

Good one, Bill! Maybe she should use that one....

She could say something like, "If I run for President, I think it's more honorable to recognize it's a full time job and not kid myself or anyone else that I can do well at the one I'm already in".

She'd have a good point.

It might work. I dunno though. I'm thinking most folks don't like a quitter and they particularly don't like a quitter who quits because their eyes are on a bigger prize. I don't know that that's the case here (she really hasn't given a good explanation yet) but I'm pretty sure her opponent would spin it that way.

In any case, for better or worse, I don't think we've seen the last of her.

Scott

Scott
Regardless of what she does I think you are right, we have not seen the last of Sarah Palin. I think it will depend on who she gets behind her where this will lead.
In any case I don't think she will just fade away.

I heard she is gonna get into exotic dancing. Very respected position now. So much, I would like to get behind her!. LOL

I always thought it unfair for any sitting Governor or Senator, or anyone else holding elected office, to stay in that office while running for another, especially President.
I cannot see how any sitting Governor can do his/her job while running for President. It takes almost two years of Non stop campaigning to run for President.

People elect Governors and Senators to office and expect them to give it 100% of their energy and do the best job they can while holding that office. It is a position of trust.
Not simply use it as a stepping stone to the Presidency.

IMHO they should resign or at the very least take a leave of Absence. Let the Lt. Governor take over or Someone else take the Senate seat.

As it is if they don't win the Party Nomination for Pres they can simply go back to being Governor or Senator. It's a win win.

Palin had my 2012 vote the night John McCain picked her.
She lost it the moment she resigned as Governor.

I never did like someone in one office running for another office but quitting in 2009 when your term ends in December 2010 to run for an election in 2011 doesn't sit well with me either.

My online news feed (courtesy of the phone company, which are my ISP) says the top three news items today are (1) Michael Jackson, (2) the Tour de France, and (3) Sarah Palin. I think if I were Ms. Palin, I'd do the same thing she did--I'd bail, and tell people when (or if) they ever got serious about national affairs again, look me up. (Until then, I think I'd sign up for Saturday Night Live. I hear they've got an opening for someone who looks and sounds like the governor of Alaska...)

Joe

Me with Joe.

The weirdest thing about Sara Palin's resignation was the whole "lame duck" thing.

"And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!"

So if she ran for president and won she'd resign if she were re-elected because that would make her a lame duck? And wouldn't she have to quit after two years because she'd [b]know [/b]that being re-elected would make her a lame duck, so she couldn't run again and that would make her a lame duck?

Politicians who know what they're doing can get things done and compromise less when they're lame ducks because electoral politics plays such a lesser role.

Sara Palin: Lame? - yes. Quack? - yes. Duck? Who knows?

It seems to me that she felt, due to the bitterness and media circus, that she would not be an effective governor with the current legislature in Alaska. I don't know if it was a good decision or not, but time will tell.

I don't think she would make a good president, but I respect whatever decision she makes about running. However, if she is worried about "protecting" her family, she ought just hang out in Alaska -- it seems like a pretty good life. Who would want to run for president anyway?

Kevin

Jes' an FYI. My online news feed (courtesy of the phone company) finally displaced Sarah Palin out of the top 3 news stories. (She never made past #3. The top 2 are, have been, and continue to be (1) Michael Jackson and (2) the Tour de France.)

What's the new #3? Bruno. Underscores my point. And Ms. Palin hung around as Ms. #3 news item for so long not because of her resignation as governor, but because she reportedly was photographed for a running-shoe ad wearing (horrors!) spandex. Underscores my point again.

Joe

LOL

Regardless of her plans, she stands to make a ton of money on the lecture circuit and book tours. I doubt she'll succeed in a bid for President (or even VP again) because she refuses to take direction from the GOP. But they'll probably use her to rally the social conservatives while she's on the road.

Joe, if I had her figure, I'd sure as hell wear spandex. But, I don't.....so, there you have it.

Well her problems can only be described as self inflicted. To use a metaphor..... She gave the press plenty of ammunition and it is no surprise that they used it. So in reality, ironically she shot herself in the foot. Thankfully her hypocritical, extremist views and failings were found out before it was too late.

She is not short of cash now but will probably make even more through talk shows and public appearances. That type sadly usually does.

Uh, Well,
She sure has the Liberal's all shook up. Damn those cold hard facts of life! You mean you can't send up to the Government a nickle and get a dollar back? No, no, it can't be! I sent my nickle, where is my dollar?

Unlike the communist we put in office.



You mean like Clinton?

Obama is certainly no communist even he (the lesser of two evils) is too right wing and corrupt for me. If you think the present regime is communist god help us all (if there is a god)

Obama too right wing. I've heard it all now.

Ben I make no bones about it I am a socialist believing in equality, democracy and freedom for all. As I see it America was built on exploitation, oppression, opportunism, slavery, anarchy and general lawlessness. None of these flaws have been diluted to a reasonable, ACCEPTABLE level. The BIG BOSS still reigns supreme. Obama although dark skinned is still a VERY RICH conservative with mostly right wing policies. The fact that he is seen by some as a commie or leftie actually shows just how right wing and unfair your country and its politicians are. JMO

Big Jim, try this. Sell your property in Scotland (If you own property and if your gov't will allow you to), move over here and buy property with the money that you made from selling your Scot property. Even with Obama as president at the current time, you will never experience a larger sense of freedom to own something. As a socialist you obviously can't understand what freedom means. To an American, that is called "The pursuit of happiness". A truly free person works, sweats, and earns for themself and family, not for the Government. You can have your Government. My family comes first.

A sense of freedom and actual freedom are two completely different things. As a socialist I know exactly what freedom is but sadly only capitalists with lots of money know and can have that privilege. I do not claim that Scotland is any better than the USA. I think all government and big business is corrupt and all politicians are nothing but lying con men. I am just stating that generally the USA is traditionally more right wing than the UK and the divide between wealthy and poor there is far greater than I would like. I could sell both my houses tomorrow and come to live in USA, nothing stopping me. I do not know what could make you believe any different. I sadly decline your kind offer to move to the land of the free. I prefer my own life here. America is a great place to visit but I would not like to live there. I also work, sweat and earn for my family AS THEY COME FIRST but unlike you I do not consider myself free. I am as much working for my government as you are. We are all slaves to the system.
PS You can have your capitalist government.... you deserve it.
It also might be an idea to check out what true socialism (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH COMMUNISM)is and probably how close to your own ideals it actually is. You may be surprised. I will spell out the main principals...democracy and equality for all....a fair days pay for a fair days work....free care for the sick elderly and those legitimately unable to work. Major industry, utility services, transport etc are owned by the state and profits used to provide services for the community.

I used to believe I was free till a guy burglarized my house, was held for a while, had to pay fines but I received nothing for my stolen items. The burglar and the court made all the decisions and I lost property.

Jim, we are both satisfied with the way we live. That's OK. I don't know real estate law in the UK, nor the US, but I do know what I personally own, and have no complaints about the Gov't system yet. I pay my FAIR share of property taxes which I believe is fair. We should pay taxes. We shouldn't be charged more for taxes because some bureaucrat believes that I'm somehow rich because I own property.

I only used the property scenario because that is the epitome of success in the US. It is also "The American Dream".
We are in a mess right now because certain politicians believed that "The American Dream" should be had by every citizen regardless of their ability to maintain and pay back lenders. That failed miserably. There are lazy people in this world who will not pay for anything. That's a fact.

Yes Big Jim, you are a socialist and I've known that for a long time. I won't argue with you because it's pointless. I still think that you're a cool guy. Ben

Well Big Jim,
You really don't understand the U.S very well. Most of the people aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. But most do have more than enough to get by. And those that do have enough to get by provide it for themselves, not the government.

One more thing. We send tons of aid to less developed countries, many that spit in our face at the United Nations. Perhaps you read all the negative stories in the Newspapers that badmouth the U.S. Most of those half-wits never get out in the real world and find out what is really happening.

The U.S. didn't get to be the Richest Nation on the Planet by letting someone else do it. People, ordinary people went to work and made it a success.

Socialisim didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work here. When one person gets a weeks worth of groceries from the government someone else has to do the work to provide it. It doesn't just magically appear.

Obama was a mistake. But some people can't see the forest for the trees. For an example of government, (Socialisim), gone wrong just look at California. Broke. The rest of the country isn't far behind.

If someone didn't build the factories, (Capitialisim) the people wouldn't have a place to work and make a living and be sucessful. Someone has to do the dirty work. Socalists, (Liberals, Democrats) want to run the country but want the Republicians to pay for it.

Raise taxes on the rich, (Kill the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg). The Auto Unions did just that. They priced themselves out of business......

Thanks Ray, I go out every day and work. My work is for me and my family first. I pay taxes second. The socialists want me to work for them first. That will never happen. If I am forced to work , than I will do what every other bum does, and refuse to work.

Success and achievement can only happen through a Capitalist government where there is competition. There is no competition with socialism.

A CEO can never send you to jail. A bureaucrat or Gov't judge can. A CEO can't send police and military to your home.
So you don't like big business? You prefer big governemt running big business? Careful what you wish for.

Obama is a rich conservative with right wing policies? That is certainly an interesting point of view. Full government control of every industry, total redistribution of wealth and complete 180 degree change of every policy done pretty much in American History? That is an interesting point of view on what is conservative. A new one in history. Must be "Make up your own definition" day.

MAB

You guys obviously have a good idea of what capitalism is like living in the USA. We in the UK are also subjected to capitalism but maybe a slightly watered down version. I have to disagree with the principles you right wingers hold so sacred. I would be grateful if you could correct me where I am going wrong.

Capitalism is based on the divide and conquer theory. I on the other hand am in favour of the unite and prosper theory.

Capitalism profits from controlling the market, exploiting the weak and creating individual wealth from others hard work. I disapprove of that principle.

Capitalism has never worked either in theory or in practice. One mans profit is made from another's misery.

I believe that we are all entitled to the same rights freedom and equality as a birthright not just there for the privileged few.

If capitalism worked then we would all be millionaires.

Not all poor people are lazy.

Nobody ever made huge amounts of money honestly, fairly or ethically.

The unions have got faults but they are miniscule in comparison to the captains of industry who exploit our workforce. If it was not for unions and socialists we would all still be serving our masters and living off scraps whilst they live in the lap of luxury. It is not so long ago that children were forced to work, slavery was considered ethical and people got sick and died or worked all hours for a pittance till they died.

The communist revolutions were brought about because povery and living conditions were so awful they had to do something drastic.
They did make a hash of it. This was not because the idealogy and theory failed it was because of greed and corruption. I have spoken to many communists who relate tales of what life was like under capitalist dictators. All of them say that life is infinitely better under communism despite its faults.

Marc re Obama. Try asking some of the boys in the hood about how rich Obama is compared to them. Having read Obamas policies I think your idea of him being some kind of left wing reactionary is taking exaggeration to a previously unknown level. Whilst he is a tad left of the republicans he still remains right of centre as most American politicians tend to be. That said I hope he does even half of what you claim he is going to do. Americans will be better for it.

Ben I respect you and your views. You are like most people trying your best for you and your family. I think that you have it all wrong though. For decades communism was seen as evil ENEMIES by the USA. Commie was seen as a bad mouthing name to call someone. People spouted off propoganda about how bad things were behind the iron curtain. Sometimes they failed to see what was in their own back yard.

Capitalism is based on inequality and priviledge. Some of the most inneficient, wasteful and uncompetetive places I have ever worked are in private industry. Price fixing, obscene profiteering and monopolies are commonplace. Socialism does believe in competition. We believe that every person is equal as of right and should be paid their worth depending on how hard they work and the importance of their job and position. We also believe in making a profit. The difference is that the profit is shared amongst the workers rather than salted away by individuals.
Imagine your ideals about capitalism but the profits are shared equally. The sick are looked after and we retire on a decent pension provided by the state. That is what my socialist ideals are about. Too much right wing propoganda has clouded the real issues.

I never thought I'd say it, but I have to agree with Big Jim 100% on this. I don't want to share my views right now, anyway Jim is saying what I would say. Capitalism is survival of the fittest, socialism is sharing wealth and pain. Taking care of your own and others.

The truth is, both Capitalism and Socialism can oppress people, and they both have.

It's not Capitalism or Socialism that is the problem, it is the hearts of men. As long as there is greed and evil in the human heart, and there will be until there is a transformative event, both systems are capable of morphing into great evil. From slavery to poverty, one needs look no further than the histories of the U.S., the U.S.S.R., China, Korea, the U.K., Germany and many other countries who run the gamut from far right to far left that have all gone over the line leading to oppression.

Pointing to poor conditions, when they exist in both systems, is a straw man. It's like saying, "I say you're wrong because you are a sinner."

Socialism/communism is anti-evolutionary. Self interest (me and mine) is what created the human species. To be pro socialist/communist is to be anti human. Taking care of you and yours always comes first.

Human beings survived because they evolved into clans, tribes, communes, whatever. To say that socialism is anti-evolutionary is an interesting concept. Russia/China have never practiced socialism or communism. They are military dictatorships using some of the principles of socialism/communism where it suits their purposes to control the population.

As for Obama, I understood the reasoning behind year one's huge deficit (hated the concept, but I understood some of the reason). However, I see no reason for year 2, 3 ... huge deficits. They are destructive to capitalism, socialism or any other -ism's I can think of. If he keeps this up, I'm voting the other way next time.

I understand bailing out GM and other manufacturing firms that are not competitive because of the imbalance of fair wages throughout the world (and management/union mistakes). I don't understand bailing out financial institutions that created this mess.

Since this is a Palin thread, what are her viewpoints on this? All I've heard are soundbites -- but I know there's more there (at least I hope there is).


Kevin

Well, There is no perfect system. A lot have spouted of how they would invent the perfect system but so far it is just a pipe dream.

So why do you thing the U.S. has been sucessful beyond the wildest dreams? Could it be that people looked at a problem and just did it rather than listen to 10 different opinions of why it couldn't be done?

Believe me when I say that everyone doesn't want to be super rich and live in a million dollar house. Of course there are some that will always bitch that they are being screwed by the system, or others somewhere else are.

It's like the little boy that cried wolf. Most people get tired of some people crying about their station in life. Or about other people that need HELP. Here in the U.S. and lots of other places in the world a person has all the tools to be sucessful, all they have to do is apply themselves. All the tools are already in place for sucess. BUT, some still want it handed to them. Pity.

Only perfect system is anarchy. Any time you have someone telling someone else what to do you have an imperfect system.

Succesful for who? What makes you think the USA has been successful beyond wildest dreams? What yardstick do you use to measure this success. Your definition of success is obviously vastly different from many others. The fact that your basic premise is wrong in most peoples eyes makes every other point you make wrong as well. Whilst America is one of the richest countries in the world it still has a huge gap between huge wealth and poverty. Money talks whilst the vast majority have to remain silent.
I agree with Mike..... mans greed, dishonesty and inhumanity are the cause of most if not all our problems. These manifest themselves through greedy politicians making bad political decisions and thrusting undemocratic and unfair policies on certain vulnerable groups of individuals. Capitalism fails miserably both in theory and practice. Theoretically socialism is a recipe that could work if it was allowed to. I doubt very much if the huge multi nationals who have the power and in reality actually run our countries would allow it.

Big Jim,
One person tried to straighten out the world. You know what they did to Him. I would be verry careful if I was you!

Greed is what keeps man from becoming extinct.

To stop being greedy is to not care about your kids.

Me and mine is the only basis for humanity. To think otherwise is foolish.

If you are referring to Jesus then this reference has no relevance as I am an Atheist. Even if this Jesus story was true then you are still very very wrong because Jesus was also a socialist and hated capitalism. Everyone who reads a bible should know that. No true Christian can be a capitalist without being a hypocrite. Surprising that these teachings are often put on a back burner by so called Christians who put money above their own teachings.

"No true Christian can be a capitalist without being a hypocrite."

Check out The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28).


(This is NOT directed at you Big Jim, you just happen to be the one I am responding to.) Now I remember why I don't stop by here very much anymore. Pretty lame arguments on both sides. No one wants to really discuss anything. Just spout off their beliefs in hope of irritating someone.

Kevin

A strange but interesting thread. Why did she quit? Could it be she was a little fed up with the media circus, or did she want to concentrate on building a stronger base for running in 2012, or maybe some media guru figured it might be a way to keep her name on peoples lips? I don't know, and I think the only person who will ever know is her.
For the other thread that is running here;
1) No one who knows anything about America would ever call Obama right wing!!! There is a very big difference between a right wing socialist, and right wing!
2) The only places socialism has shown itself as working at all is in countries where the greater majority of the population is willing to work. Almost every one of those countries are very small in population, or population per square mile. Trust me, if even 10% of their population didn't want to work or refused to bother supporting their offspring, the story would be a lot different. I am not talking about the people who cannot work for health reasons, I am talking about people who just plain don't want to work, or continue having kids knowing they will never be able to pay for any of their health care or education.
3) I don't believe America is perfect. I don't believe children should have to work to support me, or that people should have to work ungodly hours to support themselves, but I do believe if I work very hard to better my situation in life I should be rewarded. I also don't believe I should be punished for it by having to support people who just don't care.
I am glad socialism works for you and you are happy with it. Saying it could, or would, work here is like saying feathers are heavier than lead. Until you figure out what % of the population is actually paying to pay for these social programs you are talking about you'll never have a clue as to why it won't work. The true cost of these pie in the sky programs are not going to be known for at least one decade, and maybe many more. I hope this country survives them but I'm not so sure it will.

Mike got it right, greed of man is the main problem of this world. Ambition is good to a point, but where does ambition leave off and greed begin. If someone has to trample on others to get rich, that is wrong. Live and let live, love your neighbour as you love yourself. There are times when we all need help. Rain falls on the just and the unjust.

If you use force to support your communist/socialist system then it's evil. Using force except in self defense is evil. Supporting government use of force is no different than supporting armed robbers. Government is just armed robbers.

A lot depends on the definition of "greed." These days, folks make up their own definitions, so I guess in that case greed could be good. But I take the standard dictionary definition:
"An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth." -American Heritage Dictionary

That definition calls it an excessive desire. Biblically, greed is considered idolatry. Timothy is often misquoted and taken out of context, the whole context is:

"9But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

10For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

And...

"17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

18That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

19Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life."

Greed, by definition, is excessive. It is taking more than one needs OR deserves. It is not, however, taking more than the government says you deserve.

According to Timothy, it is the love of money, not money itself, that is a root of evil. He goes further to say that God gives us all things, richly, to enjoy, and that the rich should be ready to distribute...not have their riches taken by force to be distributed for them by folks who may not believe as they do. Kevin's mention of the parable of the talents shows, in the words of Jesus, that it is good to create wealth.

Many don't believe. That is their choice in a free society...here of course I'm referring to the fact that many don't believe that their wealth should be taken from them by force and given to people who had nothing to do with the creation of such wealth. Many, however, do believe that it is right to freely give of what we have to others who have need. The difference is in the freedom to give versus being forced to give.