Larry Kuperman

Palin Resigns as Govenor

▼

Palin Resigns as Govenor

Embattled Pol Steps Down

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908669,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
from JoeUser Forums

On the first day of the long 4th of July Holiday weekend, a day no doubt chosen to minimize press scrutiny, Sarah Palin announced that she would serve out her elected term of office, but would instead turn the reins over to the state's Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. She stated in her resignation speech that one of the factors motivating her resignation was the high cost to both the state and to the Palin family of defending her against the 15 ethics complaints that had been brought against her in the two and and a half years since she had assumed office and added that her continued service would not be "best for Alaska." (I am only quoting part of her remarks, but lest I be accused of taking them out of context, please see http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/07/full-text-of-palins-resignation-speech.php for the complete and unedited transcript of her speech.)

Ms. Palin's resignation came one day after MSNBC journalist Keith Olbermann had published a series of emails in which then Govenor Palin had tried to get John McCain's campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, to lie on her behalf during the last campaign in order to cover up Todd Palin's long-time membership in the secessionist Alaska Independence Party:

"Please get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today - two reporters, a protester's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party. It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it...Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed."
[October 15th 2008, Gov Palin email to Steve Schmidt, Source CBS News]

"Ignore it. He was a member of the AIP? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protesters. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves America."
[October 15th 2008, Steve Schmidt email to Gov. Palin, Source CBS News]

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a member BC Independent Alaskans too often check that Alaska Independent box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."
[October 15th 2008, Gov. Palin email to Steve Schmidt, Source CBS News]

"Secession, it is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the Union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the website. Our records indicate that Todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be inaccurate. [sic] The inaccuracy [sic] would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many Alaskans who love their country join the party because it speaks [sic] to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country. We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where John has to address this."
[October 15th 2008, Steve Schmidt email to Gov. Palin, Source CBS News]

Recently, she has even come under fire from Conservative columnists and bloggers. For example, this post comes from the Drudge Report site commenting onthe recent Vanity Fair article "It Came From Wasilla": "Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska's charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn't always jibe with reality."

Charles Krauthammer speaking on Fox News more or less completely dismissed Me. Palin her as a seriousl candidate for President:

"Now, as to Palin, I agree entirely with what Mara [Liasson] said -- she is, she has star power without any doubt, she has an extremely devoted following, but she is not a serious candidate for the presidency."

"She had to go home and study and spend a lot of the time on issues with which she was not adept last year. And she hasn't."

"She has to stop speaking in cliches and platitudes. It won't work. It could work for eight weeks if you're the No. 2 candidate, as she was last year. But even so, she got singed a lot in that campaign. You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency."

Having stepped down as Govenor of Alaska, she has more or less lost her platform for any Presidential attempt. I am certain that she will still make an attempt at the office, further widening the divide between economic and political conservatives and social conservatives. And as a Liberal Democrat, I must acknowledge that I welcome the divisiveness that she will bring to the primaries.

How long, would you guess, before Sarah Palin is the host of a right-wing talk show?

 

palin resign republican
69,124 views 81 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

They had money and he had limited resources, and they knew it.
.

That's why I offer the solution I did.  Seems to me that would solve that issue.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ah, now I understand. 
Do you agree with the notion that any plaintiff that brings a suit against someone (ethics or civil suit) and the plaintiff loses that the plantiff should pay (time or money) equally as much as they were suiing for?


Only if there is a legal precedent for it. I don't believe the financial compensation should happen just because they felt like it.I've always had an issue with the whole concept of financial reimbursement for pain and suffering because "pain and suffering"  is a subjective thing. that isn't to say that if there is undeniable proof that someone did cause you it, like say...they purposely caused you physical and mental and emotional harm/tress that ultimately pushed you into a situation that made you miss days of work. (Say, hypothetically, you're kidnapped beaten...which causes you mental problems that leads to you having to either quit your job or miss days of work.) In that case, I could see the legitimacy with it. Still, I would be skeptical.



I think it's pretty obvious what's happening here. Palin is receiving all these trumped up ethics violations to disuade her from running. Obviously she is a threat or they would leave her alone. They continue to harass her in hopes of breaking her or ruining her financially, politically, emotionally or whatever. Happens all the time, like AD mentioned about the Judge and the cleaners.

Mmm, like I said, if it is legit it is legit. No one, not even the almighty folksy Palin herself should be given leniency on it.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

Only if there is a legal precedent for it. I don't believe the financial compensation should happen just because they felt like it.I've always had an issue with the whole concept of financial reimbursement for pain and suffering because "pain and suffering" is a subjective thing. that isn't to say that if there is undeniable proof that someone did cause you it, like say...they purposely caused you physical and mental and emotional harm/tress that ultimately pushed you into a situation that made you miss days of work. (Say, hypothetically, you're kidnapped beaten...which causes you mental problems that leads to you having to either quit your job or miss days of work.) In that case, I could see the legitimacy with it. Still, I would be skeptical.

But see AJ, that's what I'm talking about wanting to solve.  If I want to sue you for 'pain and suffering' and for whatever else I feel so inclined to sue you for.  Let's play with numbers (because I like numbers :) ) here and say I'm suing you for 250,000 in pain and suffering for whatever injustice I felt you caused me.  I being the plantiff would be responsible to pay YOU AJ, the defendent $250K if I (the plantiff) LOSE my law suit against you.  With the plantiff knowing that this could be reversed and that I might have to pay what I'm suing for, I see two things happening: 1) I'm going to make sure I have a case.  2) I'm probably not going to sue you for these crazy amounts that we hear about if I may have to court ordered to pay you back (even garnished wages).


Besides if I lost a couple times I'd be to broke to sue you again!

 

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

Mmm, like I said, if it is legit it is legit. No one, not even the almighty folksy Palin herself should be given leniency on it.

After few such complaints having turned out to have been bogus, I think it is safe to assume that they all are.

I don't know how almighty Palin really is.

But I also don't think she is a threat to Democratic rule. What the Republicans need is someone closer to the centre, not more extremist. Palin is certainly not an extremist and she is better than Bobby Jindal, but there are some things Republicans have to understand.

The reason Democrats and independents voted for Obama was because they perceived the Republican party to have worked on the wrong problems. The Democrats around Obama campaigned on the premise that everything George Bush did was wrong and evil and the Republican party sent a strong message that the only fault they could find with George Bush was that he wasn't right-wing enough. The criticism is true but unlikely to convince those on the left of Bush who have fewer problems with him than with those more on the right.

John McCain, I guess, was a respected candidate even among most of the left (I'll exclude the many loonies who even made fun of how he looked because he had been tortured for years). But many Republicans made it clear that they didn't consider him a true conservative. Well, maybe he was not, but the voters didn't want a "true conservative". If John McCain could have mananed to run with Joe Lieberman, I think many Democrats might have voted for the mixed ticket. After all, Obama also campaigned on the ticket of building bridges between the parties. With Obama it was an obvious lie, but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have been a bridge.

And last but not least, liberals are very conservative. In America there is a tendency to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in ways that are not always correct. For example, a "conservative" in the US is often someone who wants to change back rather than preserve. Liberals don't want a change back but they also don't want change forward. They want things to stay the same, notwithstanding calls for "change". That's why Obama isn't doing anything except spending. Conservatives are also more likely to accept and support a woman leader than liberals. In general conservatives are more likely to accept change and liberals are more likely to demand change. That's why, with the exception of Golda Meir, women leader in the western world have been conservatives. Women do not fare well among liberal voters. And many liberals vote rather for evil than for a woman, probably to keep the world alive in which they can demand change.

 

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not (or shouldn't be) about 'who' wins, it should be about what policies and positions win.  Why vote for McCain if he's just a liberal in Republican dress (except as 'the lesser of evils')?  Our cult of personality, nurtured and matured by our sycophant media, will be our downfall.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not (or shouldn't be) about 'who' wins, it should be about what policies and positions win.  Why vote for McCain if he's just a liberal in Republican dress (except as 'the lesser of evils')?  Our cult of personality, nurtured and matured by our sycophant media, will be our downfall.

Congratulations.

You ended up with the policies and positions of Obama.

 

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

ut see AJ, that's what I'm talking about wanting to solve. If I want to sue you for 'pain and suffering' and for whatever else I feel so inclined to sue you for. Let's play with numbers (because I like numbers ) here and say I'm suing you for 250,000 in pain and suffering for whatever injustice I felt you caused me. I being the plantiff would be responsible to pay YOU AJ, the defendent $250K if I (the plantiff) LOSE my law suit against you. With the plantiff knowing that this could be reversed and that I might have to pay what I'm suing for, I see two things happening: 1) I'm going to make sure I have a case. 2) I'm probably not going to sue you for these crazy amounts that we hear about if I may have to court ordered to pay you back (even garnished wages).


Besides if I lost a couple times I'd be to broke to sue you again!

 

Meh, to each their own. I don't plan on doing anything suit worthy any time soon.

 

After few such complaints having turned out to have been bogus, I think it is safe to assume that they all are.

I don't know how almighty Palin really is.

But I also don't think she is a threat to Democratic rule. What the Republicans need is someone closer to the centre, not more extremist. Palin is certainly not an extremist and she is better than Bobby Jindal, but there are some things Republicans have to understand.

The reason Democrats and independents voted for Obama was because they perceived the Republican party to have worked on the wrong problems. The Democrats around Obama campaigned on the premise that everything George Bush did was wrong and evil and the Republican party sent a strong message that the only fault they could find with George Bush was that he wasn't right-wing enough. The criticism is true but unlikely to convince those on the left of Bush who have fewer problems with him than with those more on the right.

John McCain, I guess, was a respected candidate even among most of the left (I'll exclude the many loonies who even made fun of how he looked because he had been tortured for years). But many Republicans made it clear that they didn't consider him a true conservative. Well, maybe he was not, but the voters didn't want a "true conservative". If John McCain could have mananed to run with Joe Lieberman, I think many Democrats might have voted for the mixed ticket. After all, Obama also campaigned on the ticket of building bridges between the parties. With Obama it was an obvious lie, but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have been a bridge.

And last but not least, liberals are very conservative. In America there is a tendency to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in ways that are not always correct. For example, a "conservative" in the US is often someone who wants to change back rather than preserve. Liberals don't want a change back but they also don't want change forward. They want things to stay the same, notwithstanding calls for "change". That's why Obama isn't doing anything except spending. Conservatives are also more likely to accept and support a woman leader than liberals. In general conservatives are more likely to accept change and liberals are more likely to demand change. That's why, with the exception of Golda Meir, women leader in the western world have been conservatives. Women do not fare well among liberal voters. And many liberals vote rather for evil than for a woman, probably to keep the world alive in which they can demand change.

 

Mmm, perhaps. Just because 99 out of 100 things turned out to be false means that that 1 is not. Let the evidence and courts decide it, not public bias.

 

It's not (or shouldn't be) about 'who' wins, it should be about what policies and positions win. Why vote for McCain if he's just a liberal in Republican dress (except as 'the lesser of evils')? Our cult of personality, nurtured and matured by our sycophant media, will be our downfall.

 

Interesting you mention that. I was watching a movie last night, called Swing Vote. While I would give it a B- or C+ over all, there was a really good line in it that I think is apt for the issue of the media, elections and votes. The line went:

"All the world's great civilizations have followed the same path. From bondage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy back to bondage. If we are to be the exception to history, then we must break the cycle, for those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

Meh, to each their own. I don't plan on doing anything suit worthy any time soon.

Did you even comprehend my point?

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Did you even comprehend my point?

 

I did, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people will go with your idea. Humans are not the most logical beings.

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

leauki posts:

I don't know how almighty Palin really is.

There is nothing "almighty" about her...she just has the markings and character of a solid, true conservative...and that's most attractive (and rather rare to find nowadays) to conservatives like me. 

But I also don't think she is a threat to Democratic rule.

You don't? Of course she is...that's why the Left hates her so and why the radical fems are so jealous of her. The media didn't go scour the state of Alaska digging for something they could try to bury her with for no reason! She's a threat to Liberalism.

Palin is certainly not an extremist and she is better than Bobby Jindal, but there are some things Republicans have to understand.

Better how? Gindal is a solid, bright, well articulated, conservative whose doing a fabulous job as Governor in Louisana.

The reason Democrats and independents voted for Obama was because they perceived the Republican party to have worked on the wrong problems.

The Dems voted for Obama becasue he promised everything...pie in the sky everything...they didn't look past his stump speeches and listened to the fawning mainstream media sell him like he was going to solve their every problem. The whole thing was sickening, but then again Socialism is just that.

After all, Obama also campaigned on the ticket of building bridges between the parties. With Obama it was an obvious lie, but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have been a bridge.

Politics isn't about building bridges...it's about following the US and State Constitutions. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

And last but not least, liberals are very conservative.

Ya, name one.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

Amen Lula. 

 Looks like you and I are twins when it comes to politics...now if we can just nail down the "religion" thing...:)

 

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

quote]Ya, name one.[/quote]

 

I'm assuming he means classic liberals, as opposed to modern liberals which are largely out of the progressive movement.

 

The Dems voted for Obama becasue he promised everything...pie in the sky everything...they didn't look past his stump speeches and listened to the fawning mainstream media sell him like he was going to solve their every problem. The whole thing was sickening, but then again Socialism is just that.

 

Or perhaps it was because he was a democrat? If there's one thing you can count on a base for, is voting whichever the way the wind blows for the party. It's the same way with all party's.

 

Politics isn't about building bridges...it's about following the US and State Constitutions. Period.

Why is it not about that Lula? Pray tell, is there no room for compromise between the party's when it comes to our country's future? I'm not advocating going against the constitutions, but that does not mean that a bridge cannot be built in order to work toward enforcing them. (constitutions)

 

You don't? Of course she is...that's why the Left hates her so and why the radical fems are so jealous of her. The media didn't go scour the state of Alaska digging for something they could try to bury her with for no reason! She's a threat to Liberalism.

What...the...???

 

 

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top

Congratulations.

You ended up with the policies and positions of Obama.

I voted for the 'lesser of evils' even though he was a RINO.  And, boy, was I right in that opinion.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

Pray tell, is there no room for compromise between the party's when it comes to our country's future?

As you mentioned....only if the policies under consideration are constitutional. Liberals are big on passing unConstitutional policies. Take the latest...there is no constitutional "right" to health care and it certainly doesn't come under the 3 branches of the federal government.

 

Liberalism, "progressive" or otherwise is all about creating big government....which leads to Socialism under the Obama administration, government takeover of what should be private enterprise.

Looks like you and I are twins when it comes to politics.

Yup, politics, social issues...we're two peas in a pod

.now if we can just nail down the "religion" thing...

Wouldn't that be nice? Still love you anyway. |-)

 

 

 

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

Liberalism, "progressive" or otherwise is all about creating big government....which leads to Socialism under the Obama administration, government takeover of what should be private enterprise.

 

On the contrary lula, you're showing your ignorance. Liberalism, at it's core wouldn't emphasise big government. It comes down to its two modern incarnation: Contemprary ("Welfare") and Classical. In a sense, the modern form of liberalism is a...variance, and personally I find it to be foolish and ironic.

It's also ironic, because liberalism - if you look at it and study it close enough, at least when it comes to classical - would be more concerned with protecting your rights, faith, etc. than conservatism would. Then again, Reid, Pelosi and crew are merely opportunists.

 

As you mentioned....only if the policies under consideration are constitutional. Liberals are big on passing unConstitutional policies. Take the latest...there is no constitutional "right" to health care and it certainly doesn't come under the 3 branches of the federal government.

 

Mmm, what is interesting is that our health care system is actually pretty decent.

Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

I voted for the 'lesser of evils' even though he was a RINO. And, boy, was I right in that opinion.

 

I don't get the whole miff about "RINO" people. Sorry, but I grew up with the idea that diversity in any group is a good thing. So, I ask, what is the big deal?

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't get the whole miff about "RINO" people.

That hardly surprises me.

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't get the whole miff about "RINO" people. Sorry, but I grew up with the idea that diversity in any group is a good thing. So, I ask, what is the big deal?

Rino's are "republican in name only"....so that alone should tell you something about the way they vote...

If a person runs as a Republican but votes more often with the Liberal Dems on keys issues...then it gets very frustrating for Republicans. Arlen Spectre was famous for doing this and a short while ago, he finally left the party and joined the Dems.

I can't see where diversity per se really figures in. 

 

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

Rino's are "republican in name only"....so that alone should tell you something about the way they vote...

 

Okay, so they don't vote in line with the party, so what? To me it implies they have a brain and don't just become a card carrying member of Das Party. I guess I'm just not a fan of someone that is a part of a party being told what to do. I mean, why not just...do what works for the people Be a member of the people's party, right? Neither party has shown us that?

 

 

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's also ironic, because liberalism - if you look at it and study it close enough, at least when it comes to classical - would be more concerned with protecting your rights, faith, etc. than conservatism would.

What you call "classical" liberalism is a thing of the distant past. You must step into the here and now...read Brad Stetson's "Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism" for an eye-opener on theoretical and practical Liberalism.

Liberals have an obsession with "rights", (but not for the unborn as the right to human life to be born doesn't exist in Liberalism.

Have you noticed how Liberals love "change" as long as it weakens traditional values; how they clamour for government control for just about everything and depend upon it to solve whatever problems come up, and believe that those who don't work and are irresponsible deserve handouts paid for by those who do?

I fully agree with Stetson who writes that "spineless conservatives have allowed lieberals to ride roughshod over the culture."

Lucky we have a few conservatives like Palin and Jindal who aren't spineless at all, and so often times just their plain simple truth spoken with conviction gives people like me great encouragement. 

 

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay, so they don't vote in line with the party, so what?

Each party has a platform that specifically states where the party stands on issues. It just doesn't mean anything to RINO's.

That's why we conservatives get miffed...you asked and I answered.

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

Care to explain instead of resort to 6th grade?

Nope.

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula, I'm going to take some time to mull over your comments about values, etc.

 

Each party has a platform that specifically states where the party stands on issues. It just doesn't mean anything to RINO's.

 

Funny, because even the party doesn't tend to stay with their platform.

 

Nope.

 

All right then.