WASHINGTON — Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, one of America’s most popular and polarizing elected officials, shocked the U.S. political world Friday by announcing she will not seek re-election and plans to resign from office at the end of this month.
At a news conference in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, Ms. Palin was at times upbeat, rambling and defiant — taking aim at “political operatives” who she said had spent months trying to destroy her reputation, and vowing to continue fighting for American values in private life.
“We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities,” Ms. Palin said, referring to herself and her husband, Todd, a champion snow-machine racer.
Ms. Palin’s decision came as a complete surprise both to her Republican colleagues and her Democratic opponents, sparking immediate speculation about whether the former vice-presidential candidate is positioning herself for a run for the White House in 2012.
“Some are going to question the timing of this, and let me say, this decision has been in the works for quite a while,” Ms. Palin said.
She will leave office on July 26, handing over the reins of power in Alaska to Lt.-Gov. Sean Parnell.
[More]
Related:
Kay: Sarah Palin’s resignation speech symbolized her vacuous approach to politics
Frum: The disastrous Sarah Palin could have become a modern-day Goldwater
Palin’s Resignation Has Many Asking, What Next?
Palin Vanity Fair Article Reignites Feud Among Former Campaign Aides
Palin hints at White House bid by quitting as governor of Alaska
Ibbitson: Palin resignation shakes up Republican presidential prospects
Palin’s resignation shakes up U.S. politics
McCann: Palin Resignation Shocks Political World
Batchelor: Palin now unmatched for the 2012 primary
Video:
Notes:
Kay and Frum sound exactly like the pair of stuffed shirts they are. Let the wars begin.
Farewell Sarah! ’till we meet again. What a pleasure to begin to know honesty in a politician. Surely as you have promised we will see more of you and your common sense, down home fixes for public policy. Scathing comment won’t stop from our polarized commentators but truth tells and they can’t stop it! Come out swinging and tell it like it is!
Democrats are nervous, and hopefully they’re right to be nervous. Commentators and especially left-wing progressives are frightened by politicians who don’t address them directly but instead choose to address ordinary people in plain language. A politician like that cuts out the media middle man – and it will be one more reason for people to ignore the asinine rules of political correctness that are used to control people.
Meh. She’s taking a break and collecting herself. It would be difficult to run in 2012 after several straight years of being pilloried in the public square. This could be merely an exercise in short term damage control. I’ve heard there is a group trying to get her on GOP ticket in 2012 and they probably advised she do this.
There’s no question about it… Palin was targeted by the Democrats and the MSM. If you read through some of the blogs of those who boast about registering complaints against Palin with the Attorney General over petty non-issues, they’re exhorting others to do the same.
It’s like a reverse SLAPP, a kind of death by a thousand cuts… The MSM chortles each time Palin is found innocent and then gleefully publishes the next false allegation.
Can you think of any other politician treated so shabbily in recent history?
Yes, I can. At least no one refuses to believe Palin is an American citizen.
Is this truly a comparison you wish to bring forward? He was elected to the highest office in America and continues to enjoy the unfettered, almost fawning, support of the majority of the MSM despite His numerous broken promises and policy flip-flops… Perhaps their silence on His economic policies is because they haven’t come up with words big enough to describe the debt He is loading onto the American people?
For people who complain about the “MSM”, they mean CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN. But what is the number 1 rated news channel? FOX, a hideously anti-Obama channel. What about all the right wingers who are making a mint on publishign ad-hominem attacks? Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter etc are all in mainstream papers aren’t they? Does Rush Limbaugh not have the #1 radio show in America?
“MSM” has just become code for “media sources who don’t vote our way”. Right wing rags are just as common as the left wing ones, while right wing punditry seems to be far more lucrative.
That debt started the day Ronald Reagan decided to restribute public funds in the form of a tax cut, depriving the government income while driving up spending to bankrupt the Russians. Right wing amnesia…
Yet He is still the POTUS… and CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN still fawn over Him… and their reporters actively argue His policy points rather than reporting facts. Imagine that.
One single network mentions there might be another side to the story rather than gushing worship like the others so you describe them as being hideously anti-Obama. Imagine that.
Would you like to directly compare Reagan’s debt (adjusted for inflation) against Omaba’s? And He hasn’t even passed the first year mark…
“a hideously anti-Obama news channel”.
You are joking, right? Right??
Substitute “truthful” for “hideously”
There. Fixed that for you.
Actually tax cuts drive up tax revenues. It happens over and over. It is entitlements that drive up deficits and debt.
You can’t “redistribute public funds” because there are no public funds. There are only OUR funds.
The involvement of the government in our economy only goes up. It never goes down , never… not under Reagan ( his tax cuts increased tax revenues) not under Thatcher not under Harris , not under Harper.
But it can’t keep going up. The growth in redistribution of OUR money has to stop. And Obama will probably go down in history as the President who woke us up.
Fox/Pajamas/Talk Radio treat him as the anti-Christ. They’re far more obsessed with his citizenship, the militant civil rights activities of his old friends and whether his middle name makes him a Muslim than they are anything else. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Few news sources in the USA are interested in debating actual topics – they just push partisan buttons. One can lean 10x as much about the USA reading BBC, The Economist, etc. Who here knows how mortgage-backed securities are created? How long would it take to pay off the debt regardless of who becomes president?
All one learns on FOX is the latest “lefty-lib conspiracy” theories.
Debt under will hit the stratosphere no matter what he does, due to economic conditions (and the compounding interest from outstanding debts to Japan & China). This is partially why I originally said he should NOT run for president in 2008. It was clear to us financial types that the US was heading for ruin in a post-Bush world. How convenient for the Reagan capitalists to have a liberal, black president who dares to redirect some funds to help the poor instead of keep them down. All the debt can be written off to “socialist Obama”. Alas, Obama’s advisors obviously had other ideas.
Mark Steyn takes Occam’s Razor to the situation and draws an interesting conclusion.
Sorry, Lee, but enough people obviously got tired of the Republican elitists who promised “minimal government interference” would cure everything and set up a system where only a few previously-privileged could ever prosper (not everyone has a spare $100k for college or operations). This type of false freedom is losing popularity everywhere because people now realize that true freedom requires regulation. Those guys in the top hats aren’t always so honorable.
The major risk now is that America adopts some kind of failed socialist government that caused all the talent to drain from Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America and Eastern Africa towards the West. A new system needs to be invented.
You’re very prompt to suggest that debt started under Reagan, but now you’re blaming Obama’s copious and astronomical spending spree on Bush? To paraphrase an old Tory… “Obama had a choice, sir.” He chose major wealth redistribution and some surprising recipients… including your industry… yet the poor don’t appear to be any better off as yet…
As far as the original comparison, has Fox or any other media outlet done detailed analysis on how much money was spent on Obama’s clothing? How many “comedians” suggested Obama’s daughters might get “knocked up” by sports figures between innings?
Jack, that was a great article by Mark Steyn, reputedly a right-wing elitist who makes a mint publishing ad-hominem attacks…
Obama should only be held responsible for what Obama does.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/USA_debt_2009/receipts_vs_outlays.gif
As you can see, during the Reagan years (1981-1989) government outlays went well past intakes. If Reagan thought that killing government income would bring prosperity, then why didn’t he kill the spending to go along with it? This is not fiscally conservative – this is a method of buying votes from human who will forever be in love with the idea that they can get something for nothing (same impulse that drives support of copious social programs)
Now look at 2008-2009. Obama is inheriting the worst situation in recent US history. Yet, it’s projected by the time he leaves office the sitaution will be much better. A fair-minded person must assume either
1) Obama will make positive changes to help the US economy
2) Obama’s activities have little to do with the complex workings of the US economy
I’m more in the #2 camp, but the president still has some discretion about whether he spends that few % of the US budget on exorbitant war games, etc. Reagan chose to do so, knowing full well he’d be well out of office by the time the s#it hit the fan. Yet he’s still feted as a fiscal conservative. Incredible.
I’m getting a big kick out of this. I have a feeling that Sarah may be going elephant hunting and while she’s at it will probably shoot a few donkeys just for practice.
“Hell, yeah!”
Paladin sure is funny and as I have said before, shes the best thing the Democrats have going for them besides Anne (get your gun) Coulter.
Read the latest update and you may change your mind.
^^^
That was one loony theory.
The treatment of Trig was shabby, but hardly life or death of a political candidate.
Doesn’t matter whether it’s looney or not. What does matter is do people believe it?
My vote is “Yes” thanks to idiots like Letterman and I hope her supporters use it to good advantage.
Just caught this.
McCain supports Palin. Imagine that?
Does McCain still feel that the 911 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada? What does that say about McCain and that clueless woman now in charge of Home Land Security who said the same thing?
Sometimes I wonder how the states would ever protect their country when they dont even know where terrorists come from.
At least the big ‘O’ likes us and according to a recent poll, hes still very poopular up here.
McCain is first and foremost a political creature, UV and these people like to be on the winning side. Maybe he’ll run for “veep” under Sarah. Who knows?
If nothing else, she knocked MJ off the front pages.
There is a great movement in some blogs to get letterman fired. Funny how he, nor any media, mentioned that he knocked up a woman, and was an unwed father for years, until finally marrying her a few months ago. Does he think the unwed mother of his child is a slutty flight attendant.
No, Jack. I mean that the suggestion people don’t like Palin because of her disabled child is looney. Which wing is in favour of social programs for the needy, again?
It’s as though Palin’s acolytes can’t accept that the majority of the population aren’t satisfied with nice legs and a bit of winking. Palin’s speeches are confused garbage, her political ties are dubious and she reverses her position at least as much as Obama. Now I’ll be the first to say that she might make a successful presidential run because in this day of reality TV and Paris Hilton, people have proven time and time to empower lovable mascots. This resignation is all a game.
It’s no trick, Cynapse. She has been hurt by a bunch of assholes who attacked her family. Maybe I should try that with Obama. I’m thinking about it.
Hopefully you don’t think you’re breaking new ground with that one.
Anyone who ever knew Obama and had a problem with the way America was running at any point has been under the spotlight. Also the charges Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen. If you want to fillet Obama, historical implications aside, be my guest. Do not ask for help when the inevitable charges come your way.
Sarah Palin would have bowed out long ago if attacks against her family were any concern. She’s a political animal and knows her acolytes will follow her wholesome-apple-pie schtick no matter what she does. You don’t just throw that away on a whim. Palin’s channeling sun Tzu by deceiving her enemies into thinking she’s defeated. She’ll be back just in time to run for 2012 and will pick a running mate that will address the reservations held by moderates/intellectuals/non-evangelicals/etc. All of these attacks will be used to demonstrate her “resilience”, which will be just what America will be told they need after Obama fails to wipe out the deficit.
Look at your own site – you’re laying the groundwork for her as a comeback kid.
I will add this. You’re wrong.
Right from the moment she came on the stage and gave her first speech to the Republican convention she has been under attack as reporters descended on Wasilla and talked to everyone about everything and then made it world wide news.
Her son (Trig) was a huge part of that and they have never let up.
It leaves me to wonder why anyone would want to be a politician in this country or any other. Steyn is right and in Canada Harper should just walk away.
If nobody else cares why should he?
Re # 28: To the best of my knowledge not one reporter every descended on Chicago and tried to find out Obama’s background.
Not one.
Tell me why that is.
They found it out – they just didn’t like the answer. Especially not your press -
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Jeremiah Wright has been played out to death. Most people realize that, while his views are not helpful and potentially offensive, he’s also a black man who grew up in the age of segregation and violent resistance to his right to make a living. You don’t just “get over it”.
Bill Ayers has been played to death. Michelle’s “proud to be American” paper has been played to death. The right is just upset that no one cares. This is because only the right is under the impression that every American has enjoyed the lofty, care-free existence as the good ol boys and should be similarly thankful.
What they (and you) will never figure out is that Obama succeeded where Jesse Jackson and actual agitators failed because Obama played the game … and won. He went places he wasn’t supposed to go. He won positions he wasn’t supposed to win. Hell, he punched his way out of the dirtiest political city in America. Does he have grime on his hands? Of course – he’s a politician. And like many, although I don’t care for his policies I admire his tenacity and ability to slay the political good ol boys with their own swords. All the right has been able to do so far is grouse like grumpy old men. What a difference 40 years makes.
What is really telling in all of this is that the American people would rather have an Al Franken than a Sarah Palin. I fully know that they are in different levels of Gov’t, but that enough would vote for an Al Franken to allow him to sit as a senator, but would, by their inaction, allow Sarah Palin to be sliced and diced so obviously and literally harassed out of the political scene is shameful. We (and I include Canada in this) truly get the politicians we deserve. By the time the voters realize things are going downhill too fast it will likely be too late to change things.
mid island mike
Re # 31: “because Obama played the game … and won”
He won because he lied as all Chicago politicians are known to do and the media covered his ass for their own reasons.
Point: This has nothing to do with color before you say it. This has to do with a bare balls, full of bullshit liar and we know one of those people, don’t we?
What possible good can come of someone who tells the truth and gets hammered for it? I don’t know but I have hope.
I’m not accusing you of anything. I understand what weds you to Palin ideologically and am merely saying she’s no wilting flower. This is a sly political move and it’s because she’s being advised by some smart people.
You also fail to acknowledge that Sarah has her own uncritical media and you are a part of it. Jack, your site is now equal to or better than many mainstream media sources and I’ve heard nary a questioning word about her lack of … substance. She merely represent an ideal and a throwback to what you consider “glory days”.
“Glory days”…indeed.
When reporters didn’t have an agenda and told the truth (maybe).
Anyway, the net has changed things a lot and when I go hostile our words can be heard. That can’t be anything but a good thing as our argument around the coffee machine goes worldwide.
We’ll see how it all plays out.
She will be back . Probably about 15 minutes after Obama goes for the guns .
I don’t think it is that bad.
People are waking up and impeachment will come soon enough as political supporters get real and turn on him. Cynapse and I have both predicted this would happen. I gave it six months…it may be a bit longer but it will happen.
Thanks for posting the link to the GIF which displays government outlay versus receipts adjusted for inflation rather than a direct comparison, Cynapse (post #16).
It is clear that Obama has expotentially increased spending, following in the footsteps of Dubya who was socially conservative but no fiscal conservative. The outlay, adjusted for inflation, is clearly double that of Reagan’s peak outlay.
While it’s fine and fun to say the current economic crisis is the worst in modern history, it is closely riveled by the economic crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Reagan inherited stagflation from the spineless peanut farmer yet handed his successor a revitalized economy. Somehow, I doubt Obama will manage the same. To be honest, I hope I’m wrong but…
As far as your claim that Obama has been attacked like Palin (post #31) unless I missed something, Jeremiah Wright is Obama’s preacher, not his son. Bill Ayers isn’t Obama’s teenaged daughter. These are but two of Obama’s close associates in his brief career as a “community organizer” (whatever that is) and if you don’t think Obama’s choice of friends are relevant to his politics, I wonder what you do consider relevant?
By the way, I wouldn’t know the names and/or ages of the Obama’s children without Googling them up. If Fox and other unnamed media sources are so nasty, I wonder why I’m not as familiar with those kind of details as I am with Palin’s kids?
In terms of measuring responsibility all that matters is amount in vs amount out. You can’t call yourself a fiscal conservative if you only stop social spending.
True enough and Obama has already outspent Reagan by double in less than a year… but He’s not claiming to be fiscally conservative.
I’m all for shrinking the size and scope of government, far beyond social spending, but we’re not talking about me. I wonder if Obama will ever have to face down a union and, if so, how that’ll go?
Hmm… Melia Ann (n. 1998) and Natasha (n. 2001).
Print out the graph and draw a straight line with a ruler through each graph line. Both lines you draw are approximately good, right? Well that’s bad news for your argument beause it suggests that, even after inflation, time period is the possibly greatest indicator of government revenue/spending growth – and markedly better than the actual president. Thus, Reagan’s only great advantage over Obama in terms of lowering spending is getting into office nearly 20 years earlier. Distance between spending and income is not counted at all in this evaluation. Reagan’s looking weaker by the minute. Want Obama to spend less? Teleport him to 30 years earlier … or just let America sink into a 3rd world nation.
It’s high time to admit that people like Regan merely because he appeared to be “sticking it” to their poorer neighbours.
There is emerging discussion that Palin’s hasty (and surprise) resignation may have less to do with a presidential aspirations and more to do with a potential embezzlement scandal and possible federal indictments.
Brad Blog
Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Time will tell I guess.
Stageleft, i can see where your problem is, lmao.
Your source list says it all.
Now that Palin is free to legally counter attack the left and have access to the necessary resources to try to level the playing field against Soros/Polosi/Acorn and their battery of thugs (powerful enough to even take down the Clintons); watch her field-dress-the-democRats.
The acolytes seem to have a hard time accepting that many people simply don’t like Sarah Palin. That “hillbilly hottie” shtick has great novelty to some and is an extreme turnoff to many others. That’s what happens when you play to a political niche like Palin has done. Other such candidates include Ron Paul, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
And as for this ridiculous Trig conspiracy theory, Jon Kay did a good job of addressing that … as well as addressing your predictable responses. This woman could have no children, and for that matter not even be a woman, and still underwhelm once any other novelty value wore off.
“That “hillbilly hottie” shtick”
versus
Elitist Haaavaaad shtick
That’s what this battle is about:
The middle class who want to look after themselves
versus
The elite who want to tax and spend OUR money
The “elite” make up 2% of the population at best. They can’t exactly win or lose an election.
Obama’s audience was larger than Palin’s was and it is definitely more diverse than her monkey-doll-loving crowd will ever be.
Rethink that one.
“Rethink that one”
I’ll bet many people who voted for Zero are rethinking that one as well.
Watching Sarah’s skitzy exit, I highly doubt that.
Re #43: The FBI denies there is any investigation going on just to set the record straight. Palin’s lawyer has also put the media on notice.
Cynapse, your usually well thought out arguments lose a lot by your use of words like
“monkey doll loving”, “skitzy” (is that even a word, lol?).
It kind of makes me think that your over the top descriptions underlie a very weak argument.
Skitzy is colloquial term. Let’s replace it with the actual word from which it was derived: Schizophrenic.
“Monkey Doll Loving” is more rooted in fact. Sarah Palin did not bring the most desirable element to McCain’s campaign.
Of course, McCain knew that going in but he needed a quick boost in numbers for his lackluster campaign. It was a well-thought out gamble in retrospect – sacrifice a few intellectual votes in exchange for the far more fanatical conservative vote, in hopes that the former can be minimized by McCain’s bi-partisan appeal. It just didn’t work.
That’s Rachel Maddow’s dad with a Curious George doll. I guess that proves he shops at Barnes & Noble.
http://tinyurl.com/oa73sm
Is that all you got out of it, Brian?
Somehow I figured you to be more adept with that whole politics and social history thing.
Re: post #41, the corollary argument means your assertion about Reagan “sticking it to poorer” is equally invalid and implies Presidents have little or no control over the direction of government spending. Check with me in 20 years or so and we’ll see…
Re: post #53, how many millions of people are there in the US? How many of them are Republicans? One person and behaves like a buffoon and, with no evidence whatsoever of any kind of connection to or approval of the Palin camp, you’re ready to paint the entire Republican Party as racists and/or fanatics. Impressive.
This is the same audience that McCain got in a fight with during his own rallies over their slurs against Obama. This is the same audience that refused to honor civil rights heroes at their own RNC rally. Whatever you think of your own convictions, Brian, you’d save yourself a lot trouble to not try to project it onto a population whose bigotry is not only confirmed but openly advertised. Check out the nice young girl making the monkey sounds at the beginning.
Re: #56
How much do you want to bet it’s just one or even a handful?
Are you aware of the history of the United States?
I can post videos and writings all day if you want, Mac.
The entire Republican party isn’t racist, but those who aren’t are now sidelined by the conservatives as RINO’s or Democrats in drag. It’s been interesting watching the Palin-esque and Limbaugh-esque elements of the GOP and their admirers utterly smoke out David Frum, Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, Christopher Buckley, Jonathan Kay and others for not taking the hard right line and turning a blind eye to the frankly scummy individuals that Ms. Palin was dragging along with her. The GOP wants to gut its intelligent pragmatists in favour of culture-warriors – ones who see no problem with being racist.
Re: post #41, the corollary argument means your assertion about Reagan “sticking it to poorer” is equally invalid and implies Presidents have little or no control over the direction of government spending. Check with me in 20 years or so and we’ll see…
Actually it says nothing about that since the Y-Axis is not measuring relative or absolute income of the poor. It is measuring income and outlay of the government. Ask nearly any poor advocacy group and they’ll put Reagan next to Satan in terms of reaction to their cause. This can’t be a coincidence.
Failing that, please settle for the basic logic that if the infrastructure is maintained regardless (at the cost of future generations), you’re getting a far better deal on a 1% tax cut on $200,000 than you are in getting a 1% tax cut on $2000.
Ummm, sure… whatever you say, Cynapse.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/huffington-post-celebrates-palins.html
Wonderful, tolerant people, those Dems…
That has nothing to do with tolerance.
Those were personal attacks. Hating Sarah Palin for being Sarah Palin is different than hating Sarah Palin for being Alaskan, for instance.
So far as I’m aware, there is no 400 year history associated with jabbing about Sarah Palin’s hypothetical nudity.
Ok, Cynapse, you are forcing me into this:
YOU ARE FULL OF BALONEY!!!!
And baloney was not my first choice.
I need to know exactly who the people were that Ms. Palin was “dragging along” with her.
There may have been some radicals at some of (maybe all) the rallies, but i hardly think that qualifies as being “dragged along”.
Ms. Palin is married to an Innuit.
She is well respected in the Native Community.
I have never heard one single word from any person, pundit, Democrat, whatever, that suggests she is in any way racially driven in anything that she does.
I have most certainly never heard a hint of it in anything that she has said.
You are too intelligent to be convinced of what you are saying. You just like to argue dont you?
Cynapse “The ‘elite’ make up 2%”. No they make up about 33%, maybe more.
You must be thinking elitism is defined by wealth. It has nothing to do with that.. Elitism is a state of mind. Elitists are those that want to rule and set up a 2-class system .. the elite and the peasants.
Those working in the CBC are not wealthy but they are elitists. They even treat wealthy CEOs of successful companies like their peasants, their slaves.
Conversely, there are many wealthy people who champion the middle class, they started out middle class and stayed that way philosophically … it has nothing to do with how much money you have. It has to do with whether you want to rule (or be part of the feudal entourage of elitists that does) or if you believe in the middle class and liberty.
Lee:
I think you can use the real word here (if that’s not true, I’ll take the blame)
So those video links were “baloney”? Thanks for calling me intelligent, but admittedly I’m not so clever as to have planned that kind of forgery.
I never said Sarah had any kind of racial agenda. I said she brought that element with her. I mean, let’s not kid ourselves – her photogenic looks and strong social conservatism unearthed many deep-fried southern rednecks who didn’t want that black guy with the funny name elected and who didn’t trust the moderate John McCain. It’s no different than us admitting that Obama attracted a lot of down-with-America, bona-fide leftists who think he’s going to destroy the market system and centralize government.
Of course, to look at the actual records of these respective candidates you would see that their respective fringes won’t be particularly satisfied in the long run (if Palin got elected, I doubt many social changes would take place apart from an assault on legal abortion). But empowerment is empowerment. And I think she can still get elected so empowering these people becomes an issue.
On a side note, that link provided notes that Sarah Palin has willingly brought her children into the limelight, unlike Obama, Clinton or even Bush. Does this not make them fair game for scrutiny (not be confused with crass sexual innuendo)?
What, Obama didn’t parade his kids in front of the cameras? Are you blind or selectively blind?
And give up the “redneck element who didn’t want a black guy for Pres” stuff. Criticizing someone who happens to be of colour doesn’t automatically make one a racist.
That’s cheap and so very tiresome and predictable.
Showing up on stage with your family is a bit different than using them for a “teaching tool”. Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins have also appeared on stage. We know very little about their personal activities or why they should be considered role models.
O said re abortion: if one of his daughters made a mistake I wouldn’t want her punished with a baby.
He ussed his daughters for a teaching tool.
Palin is brave enough to give life to a handicapped child and standing by her pregnant teenage daughter. If the left is uncomfortable by that and finds it harder to look themselves in the mirror, that’s their problem. She lives what she believes. She is providing an example, not forcing everybody to live by certain rules, as the left would have us do. Obviously an example the left hates, but again, their problem.
Because she’s not living by what the left deems is acceptable, she’s using her family as a teaching tool?
Come on, Cynapse, I really thought you were smarter than that.
Really, it was all about Trig from day one. She is pro-life and the left hates her for living that out.
End of story. Makes them uncomfortable so they hate her for it. Not one of those cowards would have the guts to willingly give birth to a handicapped child and raise him. Not one.
Soccermom:
I’ve no idea how anyone can simplify disdain for Sarah Palin down to hatred of her not aborting her delayed grandson, and continue to take themselves seriously. Are you suggesting that had there been no Trig we’d have admired and adored the “you betchas”, strong SoCon agenda and incoherent interviews? You don’t take most of the population for much, it seems.
Cynapse, your #67 just gets more sillier each time I read it.
Were any of those other presidential children subjected to as much investigation, accusations and made-up stories as the Palin kids? No damn way. Come on, stories were made up that Todd was doing the oldest daughter and Trig was the product of that. You can thank the hateful left for that. Once they saw Mrs. Palin was energizing the McCain campaign, they had to put a stop to it and her. The hate was real.
Her family is her family. And she was attacked for having a real family, much like many of ours, with real problems and challenges. What was she supposed to do, hide them? If you feel that her having a real family and not being ashamed of them is using them as a “teaching tool”, then that’s your opinion/problem.
Your arguments/ the left’s arguments are so weak. Maybe there is hope after all, that by 2016 the left will run out of made-up stories about her and she will have a chance. If you guys really think about why you hate her so much you will realize that you’re being quite ridiculous.
Trig is not her grandson, he is her son.
You’re right, I certainly have no respect for the left anymore.
The left did not admire and adore Trig, they have been making fun of him. Check out the Huffington Post recently?
Your only half right soccermom as most polls show Canadians dont have much respect for either side anymore. This attitude certainly showed up during the last federal election when only about 59% of Canadians exercised their right and worse here in Ontario where about only 50% exercised their right to vote during the last provincial election.
My mistake on the son/grandson part.
I don’t check the Huffington Post ever when looking for meaningful information. They’re the equal but opposite response to WorldNetDaily, another popular website that starts with its answer and looks for factoids to form the appropriate question.
Thus if most of your allegations are coming from that source I’d have to say “What do you expect?”
Like most detractors I know, I don’t like Sarah Palin’s platform or the quality of its delivery. Everything else is just noise – more symptomatic of a lazy media struggling to stay employed by making the news as juicy as The Hills.
Oh, it was more than the Huffington Post, Cynapse. That was just one example of many.
Fair enough, you don’t agree with her platform. I realized that a long time ago. But the stuff you said about her using her family as a teaching tool was off base. I also appreciate your final sentence at #76: very true.
But you have to admit, Cynapse, that this “lazy media” you refer to did gang up on Mrs. Palin with lies and innuendo much more so than they did to Obama and his family.
The HuffPo is huge in lefty circles. Obama even staged a question from HuffPo reporter just a few days ago and even Helen Thomas didn’t like that much.
Since racism has been brought into this conversation , what do the African – Americans that voted for Obama for no other reason than he’s African – American get labelled as ?
Good question, cantuc!
They get labeled as short-sighted … and not particularly numerous.
Hillary Clinton (whose husband has a lot of big-name AA support) had more support among blacks than Barack Obama until nearly the end of the Dem primary, where they were running about even. Obama’s initial support was overly young and white, where AA’s distrusted his non-AA upbringing (ghetto kid he was not)
Roughly 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama over John McCain.
This is up from roughly 90% of AA’s who vote for Democrats regardless. That number may have dropped with McCain running for the GOP, but that was quickly undone by the Monkey-Doll crew attracted by Palin. This sort of behaviour automatically forces blacks into the other camp.
I wonder if some who lent their support during the campaign already regret doing so or find themselves dismayed at the current spending?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEcvSPzk5A4
Monkey-Doll crew? What the hell do you mean by that?
Would Palin’s Monkey-Doll crew be similar to Obama’s Acorn crooks? Just wonderin’…
Remember the nice intimidating Panthers standing outside some of the polling stations? Nice people, those.
Guess there’s freaks and weirdos on both sides, eh Cynapse?? Of all colours. Blacks can be racist too, you know.
I also think Cynapse is labelling rural and small-town people as backward and intolerant. Shame on you.
These people are the backbone of both countries; doing the hard work while urbanites bitch and moan about everything and their entitlements.
ACORN has been recorded by history as an independent organization not created or energized by Barack Obama. Outside of the “corruption” sound bite that has been played to death, they are an advocacy group for poor urban people. Their interests include affordable housing and urban infrastructure development. Obama was probably the first candidate to actually listen to them and they never let go. By the end of his term they’ll probably hate him, but that’s immaterial. The major difference from the Monkey-doll group is that ACORN is an official group with a single agenda.
The Panthers stated they were standing outside the polling booths to prevent any of the previous shenanigans when (most likely GOP-backed) goons intimidated black urban voters (recall 2000 and 2004 elections). The truth was that the Panthers had no idea what you were going to vote once you entered that booth, but they did allow you to vote. Had these people called themselves MinuteMen and had blonde hair you’d be praising them as an example of citizens protecting democracy. The only people who seemed offended by their presence were the people who had next to no chance of benefiting from those urban votes.
I was born small town and lived close to a plethora of farms. Therefore, I know the whole story of rural attitudes, not just the “backbone of the country” line popularized by Chevy/Ford Truck commercials. Before you continue with this crusade please Google my previous conversation with Jema 54, who also attempted this ridiculous advocacy earlier this year. I mean, if the shoe fits anybody ….
Wow, Cynapse. So quick to call me a racist. Racism exists in all races. Just because someone is white does not, I REPEAT, does not make them a racist.
Shame on you.
Acorn, that is Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now helped big time to get that community organizer himself, Barack Obama, elected. If you don’t think fraud took place with that group, you are deluding yourself.
I’m done arguing with a brick wall. For a while you were sounding almost reasonable, then you brought up the hillbilly/white racist bit again. That’s just wrong.
Actually I didn’t call you a thing. That last post:
1) Explained what ACORN is
2) Explained why the panthers were at the voting booths
3) Intimated that I technically am “rural” as well
You’re seeing things that aren’t there, ma’am. You’ve got Brian S syndrome by equating yourself with people you don’t even fully comprehend. This is the problem when Canadian “conservatives” (whose conservatives have more in common with Obama than they do with Palin) try to become GOP cheerleaders. Yes, the labels (if you pardon the use of that expression) are the same but the mindsets are definitely not.
To restate, I’m accusing you of not fully understanding who you choose to advocate. It’s a common problem in Canada and both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it.
I’m a syndrome now? Cool. I’m ok with that, but I do believe that it is safe for you to come out of your bunker now Cynapse, since the white Christian mobs are mostly up at the cottage barbecuing or otherwise enjoying their summer, and still not giving much of a damn at all about the colour of your skin. And maybe you need to think about upping your medication a little?
History books. They’re wonderful things, Brian.
Seriously, if I had a nickel for each time you accused me of accusing you of being racist … I’d give you the money because it would easily solve all those ailments you told me about (that I didn’t want to know). BTW, by totally trivializing the nature of said individuals you realize you’re proving my point, right?
Whether or not the knowledge that can come from history books has any value at all depends entirely on the limitations of whoever wrote them. The common sense that can eventually lead to wisdom can only come from the trial and error of our own life experiences, which gives us our ability to discriminate between the myriad of competing ideas thrust upon us by our fast paced modern world. I come on here, as far away from the biased MSM as I can get, to read the news, because I find it useful, and not to argue with you, which I have previously discerned is not useful.
History books tell you why things are. A large accumulation of facts and testimonials about a period in time. The biased attitudes of rural social conservatives is so widely known as to be cliche, but only good historical sources can trace the evolution (term used loosely) of such attitudes.
JNW is sourced from the MSM so obviously you’re not escaping it. At best you’re escaping opinions that you don’t want to hear … which is re-injected into your conscience by myself and a few other centrist readers.
Arguing with anyone isn’t useful, especially on the internet. If you do actually manage to change someone’s mind entirely through citing a few partisan sources … what’s stopping some other idealogue from swinging said weak-minded person in the opposite direction a few months later? Basing your life entirely on your experiences amounts to a sample of 1, which actually isn’t a very good way to make your judgments. That is very counter-intuitive, but ultimately judgements based on experience fail to account for confounding factors and randomness.
<i>But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.</i>
This site is an great <a href=”http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/”>read</a>
Make sure you read through all the comments also. They were at 160 when I first read through them.
Sorry, meant to do this.
But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.
This site is an great read.
Make sure you read through all the comments here. They were at 160 when I first read through them.
Thanks for the link, jm!
Just got to the link, jm. Mac has it right and thanks.
Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. http://www.attorney-dwi.info/