Monday, July 6, 2009

Palin 2012? God I hope not.

There is a lot of speculation about why Sarah Palin decided to resign as Govenor.

Most likely, it is to clear the way for a Presidential run for 2012.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

Sarah Palin one of the worst candidates to come from the ranks of the GOP in a long time.

During the McCain candidacy, she couldn't name any Supreme Court decisions she agreed with or disagreed with (except for Roe v. Wade, of course). Her foreign policy experience? Russia is almost seen from Alaska!

And now she quits on her constituents after a [undeserved] lashing from the press. Yes, her lashing was undeserved on such subjects as her family life; her womanhood; her sexuality. On her political career, however, she was fair game, and just couldn't take the heat.

So she abandons Alaska so she can facebook and twitter away to her [fanatically, unrealistically] loyal fanbase.

Just because she is conservative does not mean she is qualified for the Presidency.

Her resume was often compared to Obama's. In 2012, his will be much more qualified, with four years as President, while hers will have shrunk, since she couldn't even finish what she started. She will hold no weight in a contest between her and the incumbent.

How ridiculous that she actually sees this as a strategy.

The GOP better find someone strong, and soon.

Otherwise we'll be stuck with "gotcha!"


TAO said...

She actually quit so she could spend time writing books, suing bloggers and news outlets...

Its going to become a fulltime job...

bluepitbull said...

I don't see how it's fair. Obama has no real experience and pretty much gets a pass in the press despite all of his spending and taxing and his inability to make an executive decision without consulting the polls.

James' Muse said...

What I meant is that while Obama's inexperience vs. Palin's was a valid point in '08 during the election, it isn't anymore. His experience now far surpasses hers since he has been POTUS for six months.

And he didn't quit. Nor did McCain, Bush II, Bush I, or either Clintons. They still did their elected duty while campaigning.

Sandy said...

Six months ago I would have agreed with you. But I would take in a heartbeat Sarah Palin over the Obamanation. She loves America. She is ethical. She would clean up Washington if she had to veto every single bill that crossed her desk filled with pork and crap and ridiculous spending. I think we need that absolutely more than any experience that a thug like Obama has to offer. We need an ethical President. Experience and facts can be gleaned from the cabinet. What we currently have is a dude so self-consumed that he is hell-bent on ramming through whatever he wants - paying back the unions and his donors with political favor, bullying all the Democrats to bend to his will despite the wants of their constituents. And he doesn't give a rat's patutty if he single handedly destroys this country in the process. I'm no huge Palin fan, but Obama is so terrible that Sarah freakin' Palin would be preferable as far as I'm concerned. But I hope your point is that the Republicans need someone who can actually win the election. And it's probably not her - but I'm not so sure of that anymore either. If the country elected Obama.....

James' Muse said...

That is my point. We need a stronger candidate.

Sarah Palin is a self-serving politician, with a little more than her fair share of ignorance.

We need a better candidate, AND one who might win.

Anonymous said...

I think that her stepping down was actually a good decision. She has been attacked from day 1 and from the beginning people just did not take to her. She will not win against Obama. We need someone strong, somebody with experience that will actually look out for us and as much as I like her, she just isn't it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"She loves America. She is ethical. She would clean up Washington if she had to veto every single bill that crossed her desk filled with pork and crap and ridiculous spending."

By Hal Bernton and David Heath

Seattle Times staff reporters

ANCHORAGE — As she introduced herself to the nation Friday as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touted her record as a reformer who worked to end the "abuses of earmark spending in Congress."

Instead, earmarks — pet projects that members of Congress fund but that no federal agency has requested — have become a mainstay of political life here, and one that Palin embraced from early on in her career as a mayor of Wasilla to the governor's mansion in Juneau.

Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.

Some of Palin's requests were for science research, such as $499,900 to assess halibut harvesting; others for lighting village airports in the Alaskan bush, where small planes and gravel runways may be the primary link to the outside world.


In 1996, when Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 8,000 some 40 miles north of Anchorage, she did not take part in the earmark process.

But by 2000, into her second term, the city had hired a Washington, D.C., lobbyist, Steven Silver, a former aide to Stevens, then the ultimate rainmaker as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"She was hungry for earmarks just like everybody else," said Larry Persily, who worked at the Alaska state office in Washington, D.C., until earlier this year. "Everyone was feeding at the trough."

Before she left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, got $27 million in earmarks, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.


Also, to imply that only she loves America is just plain silly.

There's no doubt that Mr. Obama loves his country as well.

To impugn anyone's love of country is a tired old tactic that really adds nothing to any discussion and only contributes to hate mongering.

By the end of his first term, Mr. Obama will have had experience as a state legislator, a US Senator, and US President. And Sarah Palin will have been the mayor of a village in Alaska and a governor who quit her job.

Not really impressive experience.

Sandy said...


Any statistic can be used to make just about any point you want. Notice that the statistic used is earmarks "per person", which you would expect in the most sparsely populated state. The cost of a bridge is the cost of a bridge regardless how many people drive over it.

And Obama has an open and known history of associating throughout his entire life with America haters. You can close your eyes to this if you want, but I WILL NOT and I am not silly for refusing to do so. He hates the America that I love. After all, his entire presidency is devoted to "change"ing it.

I never said Palin was impressive. But in my opinion she is no less impressive than Obama.

James' Muse said...

Sandy, saying that someone hates american because they are trying to change it is silly.

Progressives of any form are constantly trying to make this country a more perfect union.

Obama is doing the same. He is doing what he views as the best thing for this country. You may disagree with his methods, but saying that someone you disagree with idealologically hates american because of said disagreement is intellectually lazy. See my post about this a few entries down.

James' Muse said...

As for "associating with America haters" you can make that case with a lot of our leaders as well. We've all had friends that were probably not the best for us, and I know I at least have had to distance myself from them. Example: I am trying to get into the Police, but I have some friends who are getting more and more into drugs. I have had to distance myself from them.

James' Muse said...

Basically, what it comes down to is: I don't hate Obama. I don't disagree with everything he does.

But I am finding more and more to disagree with. And right now, if Palin were to go up against Obama, I don't even think I'd vote for her. Don't want a quitter going up.

What I would like to see is a strong candidate from the Republican party that has strong moral fiber, not just lip service to conservative ideals.

Sandy said...


Giving Obama chance after chance doesn't make one an intellectual. At some point citizens have an intellectual duty to realize a mistake and call it out. That point may be different for each person, but the height of intellectual laziness is not recognizing that there is such a point. Is there any line that when crossed you would turn completely and finally from a leader or will you be the frog that is boiled to death by accepting the heat in subtle increments? I am already out of this pot! Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I have better perception than others. Who knows for sure? But it WOULD be intellectually lazy for me to change what I think just because a couple of people call me names (silly, lazy). I do enjoy your blog though - you do a good job with it. And I can't complain too much since I am too lazy to write a blog of my own - to that I will admit!

James' Muse said...

I don't mean to call you names. My point, which I made a couple posts down, is that it is intellectually lazy to brand someone as "anti-american" or "hating america" because you disagree with him/her.

I don't give him chance after chance, I've criticized him a few times here, and I have many a problem with our POTUS. But I don't think he hates America. I just think he has a different idea of how to make it better; sometimes his ideas are just misguided.

Anonymous said...

"Any statistic can be used to make just about any point you want."

That was EXACTLY what I wanted to say to Shaw!! Now I don't have too!

I actually wish people would just leave her alone at this point. She stepped down, whether you agree with it or not. It's done. It's not effecting us like so many things around us right now.

If she turns around now and starts running for the 2012 spot, that is when the arrows should start flying. I've seen her being attacked on a couple of blogs and it's getting old. (Not talking about here)!

Shaw Kenawe said...


No one called you a name.

I commented that it is silly to imply that Sarah Palin loves America and Barack Obama doesn't.

I've never questioned Palin's patriotism. I disagree with her on many issues, but I believe she loves her country as much as I do, or as much as Mr. Obama does.

I think it serves no good purpose to imply that the president of the United States is an America-hater. Or that some Americans are more Americans/real Americans, than others.

I've read that too many times on rightwing blogs.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Mr. Obama's policies and methods.

Comparing him to Hitler [not you, others] or implying he hates his country may temporarily make a person feel good or vindicated, but it simply is not true, and lowers the level of discussion.

BTW, would anyone in this world like to be judged on 5 months worth of work? Especially work that encompasses national and international duties? Especially when one inherited mountains of debt, two wars, and a near collapse of our financial institutions?

Sandy said...

Thanks Shaw. I agree with your general philosophy that we shouldn't be hateful. And I appreciate your passion for what you believe. Isn't it great that we live in a free society where we can have such spirited debate?

My only problem with your argument is that you and James stated your assumptions about Palin: self-serving, ignorant, unethical. I don't doubt that there is evidence that would validly lead you to those opinions. I agree that she seems quite ignorant in some pretty important areas. But why is it ok to state those negative opinions about Palin but not ok to use known facts to make a judgment about Obama?

He is drawn to radicals who hate America. These are not guys who just smoked a little weed in high school. They bombed the Pentagon! They openly shout "God D@mn America!" And the person Obama selected to manage the online fundraising, constituency-building, issue advocacy, and peer-to-peer online networking aspects of his 2008 Presidential campaign (Sam Graham-Felsen) had this to say in the Socialist Viewpoint:

"The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment."

"After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization in an attempt to carry on the project of building a nucleus of a revolutionary party true to the historic teachings and program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky."

People like this are Obama's mentors (his word), his spiritual leaders, his campaign managers. So I think it's completely valid to question not only his policies and methods as you say, but also his motivations and allegiance to America. With his history, I wouldn't feel like a vigilant citizen if I did not.

I know you like to have the last word - so have at it!

James' Muse said...

There is a difference here, Sandy. Calling someone ignorant, or self-serving, is a far cry from Anti-American. One is qualifications; one is whether or not someone is a traitor.

Sarah Palin, in stepping down, is one of two things: A coward who couldn't stand the political heat, or a self-serving politician who stepped down to campaign for something higher. Either way, she has abandoned her constituents.

Obama's choice of friends, who he has distanced himself from, doesn't make him anti-american. Like I said, now that I am looking for something in the police force, I have had to distance myself from one of my best friends who has gotten into hard drugs, and may or may not be dealing. Obama, in seeking our nation's highest office, has had to distance himself from family friends he's had for years because of their objectionable political beliefs.

But my biggest objection was to your assertion that he is anti-american because he is changing things. That IS silly. That implies that only conservatives are american, because they don't want to change things, and all liberal, progressives, etc, hate america. Not true. We all love this place, we just have different ideas of how to run it.

And btw, socialism isn't anti-american. We have a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism, and have had for years. I don't think we've had a true capitalistic system since before the great depression, if ever. If we did, we wouldn't have a middle class, we wouldn't have a progressive tax system, or government run postal offices, public police, etc, welfare, social security, etc.