Sarah Palin

It has been posted already--and the right way. By URL rather than copyright-violating reposting of the text.

It's a pretty damning letter, but probably will only convince those already convinced.

Sorry But I am not going to post a link to my Email for anyone.

Yes it is the same letter that Scoops has on their web sight I posted their link to show the letter was for real.
 
If she has a mediocre tax and spending record I would find that disappointing. I'm waiting for a sophisticated analysis from an authoritative, non-partisan source that shares my fiscal conservative view, like Cato.

Mediocrity in that would still not be completely damning, however, because of this:

How Palin Beat Alaska's Establishment
By Kimberley A. Strassel, WSJ
She stood firm for reform, though not populism.

Her anti-political establishment credentials goes right to the heart of something I wrote here earlier this week:

"Why is your country in such a mess?"

The problem today is two-fold: First, an inbred, self-serving poltical class has escaped the people's control and is manipulating the government to perpetuate their control of it. An aside: The perception that Palin is an opponent of that class is the true source of her appeal, and almost certainly the reason McCain picked her - social conservatives are a dime a dozen, and if that's all he wanted he could have picked Hucksterbee.

Second, government's size and scope has become so massive and its actions so intrusive into so many areas that its inevitable dysfunctions are truly weakening the country. We'd really be screwed if most of the other countries in the world didn't have just as serious a case of this disease - if that ever changes we really will be trouble.
 
will Palain help McCain win ohio?

Last poll numbers I saw for Ohio were about as tight as it could be... 44.0 for Obama and 44.6 for McCain.

Another state was knotted at 46.0%... The same days Gallop National was 48% Obama, 44% McCain. That's close, but the electoral spread made it REALLY tight.
 
Last poll numbers I saw for Ohio were about as tight as it could be... 44.0 for Obama and 44.6 for McCain.

Another state was knotted at 46.0%... The same days Gallop National was 48% Obama, 44% McCain. That's close, but the electoral spread made it REALLY tight.
All it would take is Diebold in three or four polling places. 2004 redux.
 
If that happens we can all quit calling ourselves a legitimate democracy... because it will be a sales pitch that no one in the world buys.
Now I'm hearing the usual suspects say, "But we're not a democracy. Democracy leads to chaos. We're a republic, which is better." ;)
 
We interrupt our regularly scheduled, probably more intelligent programming...

This is the really long would-have-been-a-blurt-were-it-not-for-the-fact-that-politics-in-the-blurt-thread-are-bad-so-I'm-rudely-dropping-it-here-where-it-can-be-in-the-proper-place (ish) sentence that precedes a second really long sentence that does, in fact, talk about Sarah Palin.

I just spent an hour on the phone with my father, who asked me, the already wearied responsive (I would never say we have conversations, and if we did I would be obliged to include quotes around the word) what my thoughts on the election were, and then, before I had a chance to say anything, steamrolled right on ahead, calling Sarah Palin "Susan" and "Sue".
I would have broken in to tell him he had her name wrong, but it seems quite obvious now that I was just not meant to speak whilst speaking to him.
 
All it would take is Diebold in three or four polling places. 2004 redux.

I'm a Republican computer tech :eek:
I think anyone alowing Diebold machines needs to be Big Bubbas bitch in the state pen for 10 years or so. The most unreliable crap on the market. :(

It's the people in charge at the local level that can screw things up regardless of party. :rolleyes:
 
I'm a Republican computer tech :eek:
I think anyone alowing Diebold machines needs to be Big Bubbas bitch in the state pen for 10 years or so. The most unreliable crap on the market. :(

It's the people in charge at the local level that can screw things up regardless of party. :rolleyes:
And when a Republican computer tech says this-- I believe him!:rose:
 
Now I'm hearing the usual suspects say, "But we're not a democracy. Democracy leads to chaos. We're a republic, which is better." ;)

But it is a republic. And the more it becomes a democracy instead, the more I fear the prospect of mob rule. And I don't mean La Cosa Nostra.

But then, I'm a cynic. Increasingly so, about government, labor, and business.
 
That's why I'm predicting a win for McCain.

I'm backing the other horse at the moment because in the final analysis I think pocket book issues will override all the rest. Middle & Working class America is feeling the pinch and McCain doesn't seem to have the answers. Still plenty of time to change but the $ is a mighty powerful voter.
 
Okay, now I'm just annoyed and done with all the attention she's getting. Like I CARE about her freaking eyeglasses!??!

Attention whore. :rolleyes:

I just hope Obama can keep reminding the country that McCain's old and Palin's more GW than even her big daddy is. Ugh.

How many more days until the election already!?
 
From Brit Humes "Political Grapevine" 10 Sept. 2008

Despite criticisms that Palin wanted to ban certain books as mayor of
Wasilla, Alaska, back in 1996, the city says there is no record of any
books being yanked from library shelves. A bogus list of Palin-banned
books has been widely circulated on the Internet.

But USA Today reports the city of Wasilla says on its Web site only four
books have been challenged there over the past two decades, and that
none was ever banned.

The Anchorage Daily News reports Wasilla's librarian at the time, Mary
Ellen Emmons, claims Palin asked her if she would be comfortable banning
certain books, but that she never mentioned specific titles. Palin says
the questions were hypothetical and that she wanted to understand the
city's policy regarding book bans.
But Emmons says after she told Palin she would not support a ban she
received a letter of termination. Palin says it had nothing to do with
books, but that she did not feel supported by Emmons. Palin later
allowed Emmons to keep her job, which she did for another three years
until resigning in 2000.

Ok Bel, rant on.
 
From Brit Humes "Political Grapevine" 10 Sept. 2008

Despite criticisms that Palin wanted to ban certain books as mayor of
Wasilla, Alaska, back in 1996, the city says there is no record of any
books being yanked from library shelves. A bogus list of Palin-banned
books has been widely circulated on the Internet.

But USA Today reports the city of Wasilla says on its Web site only four
books have been challenged there over the past two decades, and that
none was ever banned.

The Anchorage Daily News reports Wasilla's librarian at the time, Mary
Ellen Emmons, claims Palin asked her if she would be comfortable banning
certain books, but that she never mentioned specific titles. Palin says
the questions were hypothetical and that she wanted to understand the
city's policy regarding book bans.
But Emmons says after she told Palin she would not support a ban she
received a letter of termination. Palin says it had nothing to do with
books, but that she did not feel supported by Emmons. Palin later
allowed Emmons to keep her job, which she did for another three years
until resigning in 2000.

Ok Bel, rant on.

Since when is it a job requirement for librarians to "support" the mayor?

You make the case against her all by yourself.
 
Gee and I thought the point that she kept her job was the relevant part. :rolleyes:
If it is an appointed position, then it is always a good idea to support the boss, if not then she was wrong. Simple fact is she backed down from a bad position, that is a sign of someone learning their job.
 
Gee and I thought the point that she kept her job was the relevant part. :rolleyes:
If it is an appointed position, then it is always a good idea to support the boss, if not then she was wrong. Simple fact is she backed down from a bad position, that is a sign of someone learning their job.

She kept her job because it was dragged into the public eye by supporters of the librarian, who backed Palin into a corner - she would have looked bad if she'd actually fired her. So she let her keep her job and backed down from the argument.

Some pitbull.
 
Gee and I thought the point that she kept her job was the relevant part. :rolleyes:
If it is an appointed position, then it is always a good idea to support the boss, if not then she was wrong. Simple fact is she backed down from a bad position, that is a sign of someone learning their job.


Not really. I would think the point would be that it's not all that smart to lay a librarian's job on the line for not knuckling under to a single person's/small group's demand to ban books, no matter who that single person is. The point is the misuse of power (or failed attempt to do so), not the failure to knuckle under to the misuse of power.
 
....besides, she actually DID fire the Librarian on Jan. 30, 2006 (? maybe it was 2005?)... and then hired her back the next business day. She said she did it as a "loyalty test".

That's fucking scary, dude. No one should EVER be able to fire you BECAUSE you did your job correctly. Especially because they are, basically, worried that you don't like them enough.
 
Finally!

Beat an incumbent Governor of her own party because she exposed his corruption.
Got a corrupt Attorney General removed.
Fighting corruption by the oil and gas industry in Alaska.
Returned windfall profits from oil prices to citizens of her state.
Fiscal conservative
Pro Life
NRA Life Member
Ran a commercial fishing company (could a lightweight do that?)
Mayor and then Governor

Sounds more qualified on Executive experience than Obama. :D


Finally! Someone is standing up for her. I am so with you. It's about time you see someone supporting her. Thank you!
 
Back
Top