Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson show leadership, while Huckabee and Romney exude cowardice

[kyzr]

I have no idea why the left keeps hounding Palin. She has absolutely ZERO chance of being on a GOP ticket.

Because she puts herself out on the stage and in the spotlight as someone of importance. When a person chooses to do that, then they open their llves up to the public theatre whether they want to or not. It has nothing to do with being hounded by the left (after all, look how Hillary Clinton and the Obamas have been hounded by the right). Look at all the frivolous birther lawsuits Obama has had to deal with.

You think that being a public person invites 0 - 17 bogus ethics charges? You think a sitting US senator (Stevens) can be indicted via prosecutorial misconduct and that's fair play in a democracy?
Try picking on Ann Coulter or Rush. They brutalize the dems daily. Sarah is a working mom with conservative values. (The more you pick on her, the more books she'll sell. So keep up the good work)

 

[Coyote]

I have no idea why the left keeps hounding Palin. She has absolutely ZERO chance of being on a GOP ticket.

Because she puts herself out on the stage and in the spotlight as someone of importance. When a person chooses to do that, then they open their llves up to the public theatre whether they want to or not. It has nothing to do with being hounded by the left (after all, look how Hillary Clinton and the Obamas have been hounded by the right). Look at all the frivolous birther lawsuits Obama has had to deal with.

You think that being a public person invites 0 - 17 bogus ethics charges? You think a sitting US senator (Stevens) can be indicted via prosecutorial misconduct and that's fair play in a democracy?

Apparently it does. Witness all the bogus birther lawsuits on Obama.

As far as Stevens, that's a bit more complex then you let on. For one, he was indicted but not through prosecutorial misconduct - the charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct. Whether he would have been proved guilty or not is unknown. To attempt to blame that on the left is ridiculous - the Bush Administration and the Republicans had full control of the DoJ to the point where it was so politicized as to be disfunctional and staffed with people willling to do anything for a conviction. Do I think that is good? Hell no. Do I think their treatment of Stevens was good? Hell no.

Try picking on Ann Coulter or Rush. They brutalize the dems daily. Sarah is a working mom with conservative values. (The more you pick on her, the more books she'll sell. So keep up the good work)

Sarah Palin opens her mouth on anything and everything to put herself out on center stage. If she seeks the limelight, the book deals, the interviews and speaking engagement then she puts herself under public scrutiny. The idea that she is a nothing more than "working mom with conservative values" is as laughable as calling Hillary Clinton a "working mom with liberal values". There are plenty of people who are able to add substance and power to politics without all the limelight. Maybe she should learn from them. Or maybe she really doesn't want to. Eitherway - if the kitchen is too hot, then get out or stop whining.

 

[kyzr]

Sarah Palin opens her mouth on anything and everything to put herself out on center stage. If she seeks the limelight, the book deals, the interviews and speaking engagement then she puts herself under public scrutiny. The idea that she is a nothing more than "working mom with conservative values" is as laughable as calling Hillary Clinton a "working mom with liberal values". There are plenty of people who are able to add substance and power to politics without all the limelight. Maybe she should learn from them. Or maybe she really doesn't want to. Eitherway - if the kitchen is too hot, then get out or stop whining.

Your point is that she stepped into the national political ring on her own volition, and that she is fair game. I don't see it that way, but okay, she ran as a VP not knowing what was ahead. I still say Biden and his "foot-in-mouth" disease is more deserving of parody, so is Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Trust me, Palin is a "cheerleader" not a "leader", she just seems like the kind of woman you could have headed across the US in a prairie schooner with during the land rush. A "frontier woman"? You either like that type of woman or you don't.

 

[Coyote]

Yes. This is America. Anyone can quit any job at any time for any reason.

Look at some of the other governors who left office recently.
"Black socks" Spitzer couldn't afford a 7-diamond girl.
"closet" McGreevy and his gay israeli lover, who he tried to give the top job for NJ security
"show-me-the-money" Blago who tried to sell influence, even after he knew he was being wire-tapped.

So some people want to focus on Palin who had to defend herself against bogus (0 - 17) ethics charges, and go broke, or take the $7,000,000 book deal. Choices don't get any easier than that. The topper is that AK is in great fiscal shape.

Sigh...typical....can't stay on topic, has to try to deflect the issue. We're not talking about Dem retards (or for that matter other PUB RETARDS) - we're talking about Palin.

Your credability has deteriorated to Palin-cult status if you think a quitter is a good idea in the presidency....

"credibility" I won't poke fun at spelling, but it is funny to criticize someone with a mis-spell.

You just did.

But back to the discussion. The left wants to ride Palin, so don't whine when we don't toe the party line of bullshit. Answer this question honestly.
If you were Palin, and were being beset with bogus ethics charges, with the score 0 -17 and you were running out of money, and had the opportunity to make $7,000,000 but only if you resigned your $125k governor's job, what would you do? <honestly>
Lets talk about "credibility".....

Let's talk about credibility. I gave an example of all the bogus birther lawsuits against Obama. He's had to pay that bill (unlike Palin, I haven't seen any internet "Obama Defense Funds" started up though they might be there).

He hasn't quit his job.

Why would you vote for a quitter?

 

[kyzr]

Let's talk about credibility. I gave an example of all the bogus birther lawsuits against Obama. He's had to pay that bill (unlike Palin, I haven't seen any internet "Obama Defense Funds" started up though they might be there). He hasn't quit his job. Why would you vote for a quitter?

1. You did not present a credible link confirming the "birther lawsuits" and how much it cost Barry, and not his mega funding accounts.

2. Why hasn't Barry provided a copy of his birth certificate that has a foot-print? That would solve the controversy. I have no problem with people verifying someone's eligibility for high office.

3. Calling Palin a "quitter" is a lie. Politicians "quit" offices all the time to do something else. Look at Blago, Spitzer and McGreevy as examples. Are they "quitters" too? How about Hillary who quit her job as senator? Is she a "quitter"?

I still say Palin has that "Americana" quality. She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she surely isn't the dullest. Lets look at some of her contemporaries shall we....

Hillary the "super *****", couldn't close the deal, awwwwww.

Carly Fiorina. Picture her in charge of the NSA. brrrrrr.

Katrina Vandenheuval. Commie to the core.

Meg Whitman. already running for governor of CA. go girl!!

Oprah. (My wife's choice) Could pay her own way, but has zero experience. Just imagine the ratings for the news conferences.

Palin. Not a polished candidate, but has a "Heart of Gold"

Okay, so Meg Whitman looks better on paper, based on her management of Ebay, but she is running for the same job that Palin is already doing, only CA is a basket case and AK is well off. Did Whitman "quit" her job as CEO?

 

[Coyote]

Before answering your questions, we need to clear up a few Palin details in the inerests of accuracy.

Palin claimed that these ethics complaints cost Alaska $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars yet the Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau Empire, and the Associated Press all reported on figures released by the Alaska Personnel Board about the actual costs of its investigations into ethical complaints against Palin & members of her administration. The costs were considerably less than what Palin claims: $296,042.58.

What&#8217;s more, nearly two-thirds of that amount was attributable in no small part to an ethics case Palin filed against herself. As explained by Patrick Forey in his Juneau Empire story,

[T]he timing, scope and other factors of the single largest expense appear to fit the case Palin filed against herself that cost $187,797 to investigate. That&#8217;s almost two-thirds of the total $296,042 of all Personnel Board investigations in the last two years.

The self-reported complaint was a means to have a legislative investigator&#8217;s findings in the &#8220;Troopergate&#8221; case reexamined by a Personnel Board investigator. She said publicly that her self-reported complaint was without merit. [Ref #6]​

Oops. Like her Bridge to Nowhere stance....she is being somewhat less than honest. And, like her (and your) oft repeated claim of 0-17 it is a blend of fact and fiction. She has had 19 ethics complaints filed against her - 18 of which are listed here, and in two she was found to have violeted ethics rules. Aside from those, the rest were dealt with, in most cases, by the state personnel board and most of the more frivolous complaints against her seem to have been dismissed promptly - which calls into question all her legal fees. Does she occur legal fees when complaints are handled by a personnel board and quickly dismissed?

1. You did not present a credible link confirming the "birther lawsuits" and how much it cost Barry, and not his mega funding accounts.

No, but since you haven't presented a credible link confirming Palin's personal legal costs either, I am not sure why you would require me to in order to address the point?

2. Why hasn't Barry provided a copy of his birth certificate that has a foot-print? That would solve the controversy. I have no problem with people verifying someone's eligibility for high office.

A foot print?????? Most of that issue has been addressed ad nauseum in the Conspiracy Theory Section.

3. Calling Palin a "quitter" is a lie. Politicians "quit" offices all the time to do something else. Look at Blago, Spitzer and McGreevy as examples. Are they "quitters" too? How about Hillary who quit her job as senator? Is she a "quitter"?

Blago quit under considerable pressure and criminal indictment.
Spitzer quit after highly publicized prostitution scandal and has had subsequent ethics investigations as well.
Who's McGreevy?

Are you sure you want to compare Palin to these guys? They quit under considerable pressure to quit from their constituencies and parties - for committing wrong doing. Not going on to do "something else". In fact, I think very few politicians quit "all the time" to do "something else" unless that something else involves jailtime.

I still say Palin has that "Americana" quality. She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she surely isn't the dullest. Lets look at some of her contemporaries shall we....

She is attractive, funny, someone who would be fun to have a beer with but she is more interested in money than serving. Bully for her but it doesn't make her any less a quitter.

Hillary the "super *****", couldn't close the deal, awwwwww.

Carly Fiorina. Picture her in charge of the NSA. brrrrrr.

Katrina Vandenheuval. Commie to the core.

Meg Whitman. already running for governor of CA. go girl!!

Oprah. (My wife's choice) Could pay her own way, but has zero experience. Just imagine the ratings for the news conferences.

Palin. Not a polished candidate, but has a "Heart of Gold"

Okay, so Meg Whitman looks better on paper, based on her management of Ebay, but she is running for the same job that Palin is already doing, only CA is a basket case and AK is well off. Did Whitman "quit" her job as CEO?

Mrs. Clinton is doing a good job. If she can't "close a deal" in the Middle East, she will be in some very respectable company.

I'm trying to figure out what Palin has done that compares to Mrs. Clinton.

Comparing AK with CA is pretty silly. AK is a low population state with high oil revenues that gets more federal money per capita than any other state.


Actually that's a pretty funny summary of her contemperaries

 

[kyzr]

Before answering your questions, we need to clear up a few Palin details in the inerests of accuracy.

Palin claimed that these ethics complaints cost Alaska $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars yet the Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau Empire, and the Associated Press all reported on figures released by the Alaska Personnel Board about the actual costs of its investigations into ethical complaints against Palin & members of her administration. The costs were considerably less than what Palin claims: $296,042.58.

What’s more, nearly two-thirds of that amount was attributable in no small part to an ethics case Palin filed against herself. As explained by Patrick Forey in his Juneau Empire story,

[T]he timing, scope and other factors of the single largest expense appear to fit the case Palin filed against herself that cost $187,797 to investigate. That’s almost two-thirds of the total $296,042 of all Personnel Board investigations in the last two years.

The self-reported complaint was a means to have a legislative investigator’s findings in the “Troopergate” case reexamined by a Personnel Board investigator. She said publicly that her self-reported complaint was without merit. [Ref #6]​

Oops. Like her Bridge to Nowhere stance....she is being somewhat less than honest. And, like her (and your) oft repeated claim of 0-17 it is a blend of fact and fiction. She has had 19 ethics complaints filed against her - 18 of which are listed here, and in two she was found to have violeted ethics rules. Aside from those, the rest were dealt with, in most cases, by the state personnel board and most of the more frivolous complaints against her seem to have been dismissed promptly - which calls into question all her legal fees. Does she occur legal fees when complaints are handled by a personnel board and quickly dismissed?

1. You did not present a credible link confirming the "birther lawsuits" and how much it cost Barry, and not his mega funding accounts.

No, but since you haven't presented a credible link confirming Palin's personal legal costs either, I am not sure why you would require me to in order to address the point?



A foot print?????? Most of that issue has been addressed ad nauseum in the Conspiracy Theory Section.



Blago quit under considerable pressure and criminal indictment.
Spitzer quit after highly publicized prostitution scandal and has had subsequent ethics investigations as well.
Who's McGreevy?

Are you sure you want to compare Palin to these guys? They quit under considerable pressure to quit from their constituencies and parties - for committing wrong doing. Not going on to do "something else". In fact, I think very few politicians quit "all the time" to do "something else" unless that something else involves jailtime.

I still say Palin has that "Americana" quality. She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she surely isn't the dullest. Lets look at some of her contemporaries shall we....

She is attractive, funny, someone who would be fun to have a beer with but she is more interested in money than serving. Bully for her but it doesn't make her any less a quitter.

Hillary the "super *****", couldn't close the deal, awwwwww.

Carly Fiorina. Picture her in charge of the NSA. brrrrrr.

Katrina Vandenheuval. Commie to the core.

Meg Whitman. already running for governor of CA. go girl!!

Oprah. (My wife's choice) Could pay her own way, but has zero experience. Just imagine the ratings for the news conferences.

Palin. Not a polished candidate, but has a "Heart of Gold"

Okay, so Meg Whitman looks better on paper, based on her management of Ebay, but she is running for the same job that Palin is already doing, only CA is a basket case and AK is well off. Did Whitman "quit" her job as CEO?

Mrs. Clinton is doing a good job. If she can't "close a deal" in the Middle East, she will be in some very respectable company. I'm trying to figure out what Palin has done that compares to Mrs. Clinton. Comparing AK with CA is pretty silly. AK is a low population state with high oil revenues that gets more federal money per capita than any other state.

Actually that's a pretty funny summary of her contemporaries

McGreevy was the governor of NJ who tried to make his gay israeli boyfriend the head of NJ security. These three examples of dems governors in action, going to jail for corruption. Then compare that to the bogus ethics charges against Palin. All costs associated with those bogus charges are on the filer(s).

For all the tap dancing and minutiae you provide, you still didn't dissuade that Palin was wrong or unethical to resign and take the book deal. This is America, we can work where we choose to, its still a free country, isn't it?

 

[Coyote]

McGreevy was the governor of NJ who tried to make his gay israeli boyfriend the head of NJ security. These three examples of dems governors in action, going to jail for corruption. Then compare that to the bogus ethics charges against Palin. All costs associated with those bogus charges are on the filer(s).

I'm curious. Why just single out Dems when there are also plenty of Pubs going to jail for corruption?

What does any of this have to do with Palin? Two of those complaints were not bogus and resulted in finding that she had violated ethics. You seem to ignore that.

If all costs associated with those charges are on the filer (presumably you mean the charges that were dismissed) - then Palin can't possibly have all these legal fees nor (since it is handled by the personnel board) can it be occupying much of her time.

For all the tap dancing and minutiae you provide, you still didn't dissuade that Palin was wrong or unethical to resign and take the book deal. This is America, we can work where we choose to, its still a free country, isn't it?

Ah, I see....providing facts is "tap dancing" in your mind is it?

I never said there was anything unethical or "wrong" in her resigning to take a book deal - it is indeed her right.

But it makes her a quitter. MOST public officials serve out their term and "quit" by not running again.

 

[kyzr]

I'm curious. Why just single out Dems when there are also plenty of Pubs going to jail for corruption? What does any of this have to do with Palin? Two of those complaints were not bogus and resulted in finding that she had violated ethics. You seem to ignore that.

If all costs associated with those charges are on the filer (presumably you mean the charges that were dismissed) - then Palin can't possibly have all these legal fees nor (since it is handled by the personnel board) can it be occupying much of her time.

Ah, I see....providing facts is "tap dancing" in your mind is it? I never said there was anything unethical or "wrong" in her resigning to take a book deal - it is indeed her right.
But it makes her a quitter. MOST public officials serve out their term and "quit" by not running again.

1. I'm not familiar with recent GOP governors going to jail for corruption?? Got a link?
2. It shows the "double-standard" where Palin gets criticized for no reason.
3. What two ethics charges stuck? Last I heard it was 0 - 17. The only one that was pending was her use of donations from a defense fund or something. It was ticky-tack at best. Nothing serious.
4. I can end this debate with the position: Dems can call her "quitter" or anything they want. It won't affect her book sales, her political future, or her speaking tour.

Call her a quitter if that makes you happy, she's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Coyote]

1. I'm not familiar with recent GOP governors going to jail for corruption?? Got a link?

You provided a link "Dem scandals" and examples not limited to governors and/or corruption. A simple google search of Republican and scandal or Republican and corruption will bring up results. Bad behavior is not limited to any one party.

2. It shows the "double-standard" where Palin gets criticized for no reason.

No reason? Two of those ethics charges stuck.

3. What two ethics charges stuck? Last I heard it was 0 - 17. The only one that was pending was her use of donations from a defense fund or something. It was ticky-tack at best. Nothing serious.

Look at the link I posted.

4. I can end this debate with the position: Dems can call her "quitter" or anything they want. It won't affect her book sales, her political future, or her speaking tour.

Call her a quitter if that makes you happy, she's laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm sure she is - it's a smart personal move on her part, but a lousy political one if she wants a political career (which she may not). She's a lot like John Edwards.

 

[ayiakri]

LOL!! I hope Ra answers your chants...Sara..Sara...Sara...

Totally agree with your analysis. If Huck wins the nomination because the south and geezers vote him in, we're toast. I like Romney, but his special undies may keep him out, lets hope not. Then there's Pawlenty (a nobody), Palin (a bimbo), Newt (a grinch), Fred (yawn), Ron Paul (brrrr), Jeb Bush (Bush, ugh), Rudy (overrated), Petraeus (no sir), then a bunch of no-names.

IMHO 2012 will be something like 2008, where all the voters want to do is "throw the bums out". The best chance the GOP has is to put up a really competent candidate. One who can mop up the floor with Obama in debates, and actually knows how to "drive the bus".

The only ones I see capable of this are Romney, Newt, maybe Rudy, maybe Paul. Huck is a good guy, maybe VP material to keep the southerners happy, but he's not presidential timber, the MSM would crucify him, while paying homage to their boy Obama.

[I may like Petraus, but I don't know that much about him, except that he's a super general. Upon further review, I'd put Romney on top and Petraus as VP and "heir apparent"]

I really don't know what the mood of the country will be like in 2012. I suspect a lot will depend on whether the economy and jobs are on the mend or not - something that the President doesn't actually have a ton of power to influence, but that's never stopped voters from chucking out incumbents before.

If that is the mood, and if the GOP manages to nominate a candidate who both brings out the base, and appeals to independents (a Patraus-like candidate, maybe, although I don't know anything about his political views), then they might win back the White House. Those are two very big "ifs" though. I tend to look at history a bit, and the incumbent is re-elected more often than not, at least since WWII. Since 1980, only George H. W. Bush failed to get re-elected....

I do agree with your take on what kind of candidates would have the best chance, I still think that somebody with less baggage will be a tempting person to nominate in 2012. I don't know enough about the current state governors, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that the GOP nominee comes from that back-bench, with somebody like a Huckabee or another social conservative to bring out the "base".

We'll have some clue in another 18 months ;-)

 

[kyzr]

I really don't know what the mood of the country will be like in 2012. I suspect a lot will depend on whether the economy and jobs are on the mend or not - something that the President doesn't actually have a ton of power to influence, but that's never stopped voters from chucking out incumbents before.

If that is the mood, and if the GOP manages to nominate a candidate who both brings out the base, and appeals to independents (a Patraus-like candidate, maybe, although I don't know anything about his political views), then they might win back the White House. Those are two very big "ifs" though. I tend to look at history a bit, and the incumbent is re-elected more often than not, at least since WWII. Since 1980, only George H. W. Bush failed to get re-elected....
We'll have some clue in another 18 months ;-)

Point of information. IMHO Papa Bush lost a 2nd term because of the 1991 recession....
Early 1990s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama is already toast because of the economy and still rising unemployment.

 

[ayiakri]

I really don't know what the mood of the country will be like in 2012. I suspect a lot will depend on whether the economy and jobs are on the mend or not - something that the President doesn't actually have a ton of power to influence, but that's never stopped voters from chucking out incumbents before.

If that is the mood, and if the GOP manages to nominate a candidate who both brings out the base, and appeals to independents (a Patraus-like candidate, maybe, although I don't know anything about his political views), then they might win back the White House. Those are two very big "ifs" though. I tend to look at history a bit, and the incumbent is re-elected more often than not, at least since WWII. Since 1980, only George H. W. Bush failed to get re-elected....
We'll have some clue in another 18 months ;-)

Point of information. IMHO Papa Bush lost a 2nd term because of the 1991 recession....
Early 1990s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama is already toast because of the economy and still rising unemployment.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that the elder Bush probably lost re-election due to a combination of the economy, and Ross Perot's indie run (which won about 20% nationally, and more than 30% of the vote in some states).

It's very early to be declaring that "Obama is already toast", when we don't even know who his opponent will be, or what the economy will look like in the spring of 2012.

I would still bet on his being re-elected; incumbents enjoy a lot of benefits over challengers (including free air-time, the ability to fund-raise early and well, and the advantage of putting "President of the United States" on their resume of experience).

Hey, it could go either way, I just happen to think he's at least as likely to get another term as not (and that guesses about the election from 3 years out aren't worth a whole lot in any case).

 

[kyzr]

Fair enough. That difference of opinion is what makes a horse race interesting. Don't overlook NJ & VA, or what's brewing in the 2010 mid-terms.

 

[ayiakri]

Fair enough. That difference of opinion is what makes a horse race interesting. Don't overlook NJ & VA, or what's brewing in the 2010 mid-terms.

VA is more troubling to me - NJ's Corzine just didn't deserve re-election, to be honest, and Christie (the Republican that beat him) has a big, "good luck with dat!" from me on his win.

In VA, McDonnell ran a smart campaign, avoided going too negative, and Deeds ran a terrible campaign (and the White House saw it coming, and didn't even mention Deeds by name when asked about the election a couple of days before).

But still - VA was one of Obama's key "swing" states in 2008, along with Colorado, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio (I don't consider North Carolina to be be a swing state - Obama won it by a razor-thin margin, and I very much doubt he'll pull that off again). It would be more disturbing to me if this was 2011, rather than 2009. And as everybody keeps harping on, Virginia has picked governors from the party out of power since 1980 or something (?)

So the loss of VA was definitely a bad sign, but it doesn't yet portend disaster (in my opinion anyway). NJ is going to vote Dem for President, so I'm not worried at all about Corzine's loss.

As you said - next fall's mid-terms will be more informative. I predict the Democrats will lose roughly 25 - 30 seats in the House, and 4 Senate seats, but keep (smaller) majorities in both chambers.

We'll see in a year!