Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[graceanne]

Doh!

Thanks, Graceanne.

No problem.

 

[cherokee_dove]

I didn't vote on the poll, because none of those choices fit.

She has so little experience running Alaska, let alone; possibly running our country? i don't think so.

Just from reading some of the articles on this thread alone, not including researching the different issues; she is trying to be Miss High N Mighty, when she is really just starting her political life.

A few years as mayor, and a year as governor of Alaska; does not mean she understands the workings and problems that the "Lower 48" have to deal with.

And her comment that she is the governor of the closest state to Russia, and feels she understands foreign policy because of that? Has she ever even seen Russia? Or just the clouds above it?

And as for the flight hunting of the wolves, there is sometimes too many wolves and not enough caribou because of that. But, true hunters would do the ethical thing; and give the wolves a chance. Not pot shots from the air, in the dead of winter; when they can't hide as easily. True hunters would go out by land, to give the wolves a chance at escape; and if they catch the wolves, true hunters would make sure the animal dies quickly. Because to have the animal die slowly, not only is it inhumane; but it makes the meat too tough. And thats what a true hunter is out there for.

You cut out, or down; of the wolf population, you get an over abundance of caribou and bear. Those then go into not only the small villages, but start to integrate towards the bigger towns; because with the over abundance comes lack of enough natural environmental foods for the animals. So they have to scavenge to find food. Which means they go into places they shouldn't be, such as restaurants, back yards, and homes. Which can; and has; caused injury and death to humans.

And yes, i do own a gun; but i don't believe in everything the NRA stands for. But thats a person's own choice.

It just comes down to the fact that personally, i wouldn't want Palin as VP because McCain is 72 years old; and with the stress that being President causes, would more than likely at some point; die.

And her take over? With all her inexperience as to how to run the WHOLE COUNTRY, and not just Alaska (which to me, is debatable). No thank you.

 

[RJMasters]

At the bequest of JM here goes.

My thoughts in regards to Palin.

Palin represents a segment of the American people. There is no love lost with many here at Lit and that segment often refered to as the conservative right. because she represents many of the things they stand for, it is no wonder that many people here will see all of her negatives and very few if any of her positives. Or even give her a fair chance.

That said, I admit that when she first appeared I was excited about her nomination, because to me she brought genuiness and authenticty to the republicians ticket. I was even more impressed when I heard many in the republican party didn't really like her all that much because she lopped off a few heads who were cheating, profitting and stalemating(and by that I mean monopolizing) the oil industry). And so for those reasins at first I was excited.

However, of late she has been very controlled by the McCain camp and in my opinion has learned how to roll over, sit up, and play fetch in a political sense. I would have more respect for her if she stood her ground on issues she believes in more, because she has a right to represent that segment of Americans. people who see her as someone who doesn't represent them is welcome not to vote for her and that is completely fair. In the end we all are trying to elect people who we feel will represent our intrests.

When it comes down to qulifications, and experience, I think she has as much expereince or more in some areas than other canadates. I see Obama having a different type of experience than hers, but in fairness to them both, I think both of them are capable in doing the job. And for every positive or negative that can be presented for Obama or Palin, it is a tit for tat type of thing. The reality is that each will be surrounded by a team of people that will help make decisons of policy and actions. The real question is for me, do either of them have the ablility to listen to all of the options laid on the table and then select the best one in the interests for America. The answer to that for me is yes, but I will say that I lean more to Palin's judgement than to Obama's. Not because of palin's personal beliefs, but because Obama has already come out and said that part of his economic package will be the reduction of millitary forces. In much the same way Clinton downsized our millitary(how do you think he was able to do all that he did?). When I see Russia sending stealth bombers and a full naval force down to Venezula and also attacking small neighboring democratic countries on its borders, and Iran pusing to become a neclear power etc....it worries me that Obama will rob Peter to pay Paul to ensure mainstreet is happy and leave us in a place where we will not have the means or the money in which to be a global presence for democracy. Obama said he wouldn't take a millitary option off the table, but then refused to answer the question if he would prepare for it. He didn't answer that because the answer was no.

Of all of the canadites on both tickets, she seems to be to be the most trust worthy in making common sense decisions that are for the good of those she represents. Where she to become President, I would trust her judgement in making the right decisions for America both abroad and at home.

I think she has character and enough experience to do the job if something were to happen to McCain. I have more doubts about McCain than I do her to be candid. he can often lose his temper, where as she seems much more in control of her emotions and thoughts.

The real reason Palin is being attacked so, is really about 2012 election where it is likely that HRC will run for the presidency. She pretty much made that clear when the primarys came to an end. Many think that Reps put palin on the ticket for short term gain, and that may or may not be true depending on how you look at it, but the repubs have no one to run against HRC in 2012, unless of course it will be Palin who by that time they are hoping will have 4 years as vice President. Much of the attacks on Palin are not coming from Obama, they are all coming from the Clinton camp behind the scenes and the Protest event over Iran was just a small taste of it. The difference is that everytime Palin has been asked about HRc she has been nothing but respectful in her answer. Perhaps a stupid move politically, but it just proves to me even further that she has the right character for the job.

I have heard the arguement that if something were to happen to mcCain because of his health can we trust Palin is up to the job? I think its only fair to ask the same question on the other side. There are a lot of racist people in this country and I am sure that if Obama is elected, there will be attempts on his life. If one succeeds, can we honestly think Biden is any better than Palin? A man who tells people in wheelchairs to stand up and then says the rich need to be patriotic and pay more taxes. regardless of whether I agree or not about his taxation views, if he stupid enough to come out and say something like that, how can I even think his hand should be anywhere near that button or holding his own across a diplomatic table?

If her standing up to the constant personal attacks and the grace and poise she has managed to keep throughout it all, then she has what it takes in my books. Time will tell though as we go forward. The fact she holds such a high popular rating in every office she holds, allows me to believe that she is probably the best chance for dems and reps working together. If left to HRC or those that support her in the dem party, they returned nothing but hate despite Palin's gracious and respectful demeanor towards them. to me that speaks a lot about her ability to be a good diplomat. She can stand her ground without having to attack back when it obvious that doing so will not benefit anyone. That's the person I want to have near the button. Someone who shows a measure of control and grace.

I know many will disagree with my view of Palin, which is fine. We each have a right to our own thoughts, but I have thought through why I like or dislike her and have not let media, talks shows, and numerious comedy shows which are clearly beyond bias tell me how to think. I am sure many of you have your own thoughts in regards to this as well, but I do see a lot of parrotting. There are still many things I would like to see or learn about Palin before I'm sold, but in contrast to the players on the fields, she looks the best to me for a number of reasons.

Editted to add this: What is comical is that many of her policies of her elected position have more of a democrat feel to them than republician. For example Alaskans don't pay taxes and she took money away from the oil companies by opening up the chance for fair trade practices and the result of that allowed her to give back money to the people of the state. If that isn't taking money away from the greedy rich people and giving it back fairly to the people, I don't know what is. If I am not mistaken that sounds close to what obama plans to do in his economic stimulus package. The difference is though that she didn't take the money away from them directly, she rather created opportunity for others to come in and have a peice of the oil money action with part of the agreement that the people of Alaska would benefit as well. She made sure that deal insured that the people would also prosper and that the profits wouldn't just go to the oil companies. She could have done the same thing only agreed to take the money herself to further her own carreer as a lot of other politicians have done, but she didn't. You can spin it anyway you want, but in the end she told big oil to get bent and let others in and made sure that the people(both dems and republicans) that she represented were included and taken care of. To which I say well done.

 

[intothewoods]

My beef with Palin (well, one of them) is not that she brings money back to her state. It's that what she says and what she does are two completely different things. She is supposed to be against big government, and government welfare, at the same time she spearheads all of these pork projects and government payoffs to Alaskans. It's hypocrisy, and certainly not authentic.

Plenty of politicians do this, mind you. Clinton certainly has. It means a lot to me that, by contrast, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq at a time when it was not popular to do so.

Back to Palin. I wouldn't use the word hate. If I had any sort of an emotional reaction to her, it was because of her speech to the RNC. She sounded pretty nasty. The Democrats did not sound like this. But frankly, that's why they're going after Palin so hard right now. A friend of mine said to me, when Democrats stick to the issues, they lose. So yeah. It's kind of on now.

Of course, first and foremost, I don't like Palin because she's pro-life and supports abstinence only education, which doesn't work.

She's also not just like everyone else. She's the very fringe of the "conservative right." Her church invites one of the leaders of the Jews for Jesus to speak. That's an anti-semitic group. She and her husband are members of a group which advocated seceding from the U.S. That seems pretty fringe to me.

I've read some long investigative pieces on Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin. You can not go "tit for tat" between Obama and Palin. He just does not have that much dirt on him. Palin, on the other hand, is the subject of an ethics investigation in her state. At best, people in her employment tried to get her sister's ex fired.

And again, hypocrisy. I don't give a crap that she has a tanning bed, but how many just folks hockey moms have tanning beds in their homes? How dare she suggest Obama is the out of touch elitist! It's bullshit.

 

[JMohegan]

RJ, thanks for taking the time to write out your views. I'll respond to your comments about Palin, but first want to correct something you wrote about Obama.

The real question is for me, do either of them have the ablility to listen to all of the options laid on the table and then select the best one in the interests for America. The answer to that for me is yes, but I will say that I lean more to Palin's judgement than to Obama's. Not because of palin's personal beliefs, but because Obama has already come out and said that part of his economic package will be the reduction of millitary forces.

John McCain sure is an effective liar. Your statement about Obama is false.


Obama's website details his views on defense spending here. On the issue of personnel, Obama "supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families."

One of McCain's favorite lines on the stump is: "Of course, now he wants to increase it. But during the primary Obama told a liberal advocacy group that he’d cut defense spending by tens of billions of dollars." McCain leaves out a key word here. The exact Obama quote was: "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Source: click me.

Obama's push for an increase in the military is nothing new. On April 23, 2007, Obama said: "But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

Again, on August 21, 2007, Obama said: "I will add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to relieve the strain on our ground forces. I will maintain our technological edge and invest in the capabilities we need to succeed in the missions of the 21st century."

And on March 19, 2008, Obama said: "As Commander in Chief, I will begin by giving a military overstretched by Iraq the support it needs. It is time to reduce the strain on our troops by completing the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines, while ensuring the quality of our troops."

Source for the Obama quotes: here.

In much the same way Clinton downsized our millitary(how do you think he was able to do all that he did?). When I see Russia sending stealth bombers and a full naval force down to Venezula and also attacking small neighboring democratic countries on its borders, and Iran pusing to become a neclear power etc....it worries me that Obama will rob Peter to pay Paul to ensure mainstreet is happy and leave us in a place where we will not have the means or the money in which to be a global presence for democracy. Obama said he wouldn't take a millitary option off the table, but then refused to answer the question if he would prepare for it. He didn't answer that because the answer was no.

We don't have the means or the money in which to be a global presence for democracy NOW.

I'm not sure what conversation or interview you're referring to in the last two sentences here. Can you give more specifics, or give a link?

 

[WriterDom]

"She and her husband are members of a group which advocated seceding from the U.S. That seems pretty fringe to me."

If you listened to her interview instead of reading left wing blogs you'd know that isn't true.

 

[JMohegan]

If her standing up to the constant personal attacks and the grace and poise she has managed to keep throughout it all, then she has what it takes in my books. Time will tell though as we go forward. The fact she holds such a high popular rating in every office she holds, allows me to believe that she is probably the best chance for dems and reps working together. If left to HRC or those that support her in the dem party, they returned nothing but hate despite Palin's gracious and respectful demeanor towards them. to me that speaks a lot about her ability to be a good diplomat. She can stand her ground without having to attack back when it obvious that doing so will not benefit anyone. That's the person I want to have near the button. Someone who shows a measure of control and grace.

She is "gracious and respectful" toward HRC and her supporters because she and McCain want their votes. "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" - remember?

Palin's acceptance speech was extraordinarily obnoxious, snide, and dishonest in reference to Obama. On the stump, Palin lies repeatedly. Does that weigh in to your view of her character at all?

Aside from the fact that she's a proven liar, I'm sort of stunned that anyone feels they know what this woman's like at all. What have we seen of her?

Palin reads teleprompter speeches and refuses to take questions from the press. She's taken a few questions from the public at tightly controlled town hall meetings with a partisan Republican crowd. She's been through one deer in the headlights interview with Gibson, and one love fest with Hannity. A more tightly controlled and carefully crafted candidate, I have never seen.

Editted to add this: What is comical is that many of her policies of her elected position have more of a democrat feel to them than republician. For example Alaskans don't pay taxes and she took money away from the oil companies by opening up the chance for fair trade practices and the result of that allowed her to give back money to the people of the state. If that isn't taking money away from the greedy rich people and giving it back fairly to the people, I don't know what is. If I am not mistaken that sounds close to what obama plans to do in his economic stimulus package. The difference is though that she didn't take the money away from them directly, she rather created opportunity for others to come in and have a peice of the oil money action with part of the agreement that the people of Alaska would benefit as well. She made sure that deal insured that the people would also prosper and that the profits wouldn't just go to the oil companies.

RJ, the Alaska Permanent Fund (which collects oil and gas royalties from corporations for the benefit of Alaskan citizens) was established in 1976. Oil had just started flowing through the pipeline that runs from the North Slope to Valdez, and Sarah Palin was 12 years old. Alaskans have profited from the success of the oil industry ever since.

You're right about some of the irony here, though. She did approve an increased tax on oil companies. Too bad McCain opposes that sort of thing.

 

[JMohegan]

"She and her husband are members of a group which advocated seceding from the U.S. That seems pretty fringe to me."

If you listened to her interview instead of reading left wing blogs you'd know that isn't true.

I would never take anything Palin says at face value. Too many of her assertions have been repeatedly proven false.

In this case, however, you're right that ITW is technically wrong.


From ABC -

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."

That said, Fenumiai says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.

So the facts are: Gov. Palin was not a member of this third-party ("Alaska First -- Alaska Always") that wants Alaskans to get a vote on whether or not the state can secede from the U.S. But her husband was a long-time member, and at least two AIP officials recall her attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend.

 

[FurryFury]

I wish we could vote for more than one option on the poll. LMAO, and that some other options were there.

 

[intothewoods]

"She and her husband are members of a group which advocated seceding from the U.S. That seems pretty fringe to me."

If you listened to her interview instead of reading left wing blogs you'd know that isn't true.

I actually don't read left wing blogs. Well, unles you count gawker, but I read it for gossip and humor, not information.

I would never take anything Palin says at face value. Too many of her assertions have been repeatedly proven false.

In this case, however, you're right that ITW is technically wrong.


From ABC -

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."

That said, Fenumiai says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.

So the facts are: Gov. Palin was not a member of this third-party ("Alaska First -- Alaska Always") that wants Alaskans to get a vote on whether or not the state can secede from the U.S. But her husband was a long-time member, and at least two AIP officials recall her attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend.

Sorry, WD. That was cheeky of me. I should have said something along the lines of the bolded part of what JM said, which I still think is pretty fringe-like. And there's that whole bit about Jews for Jesus, which you ignored, of course.

RJ raised the issue of "parroting" and where we get our information. I personally don't rely on talking heads on CNN. I watch them for a bit of entertainment, and to see how things are playing out in the media. For news and reporting, I listen to NPR, read the NY Times and the New Republic. I find these sources pretty damn straightforward, but there's always a bias in everything.

 

[intothewoods]

At the end of the day, my feelings about Sarah Palin are really more a reaction to McCain's pick for VP. How do you bang the lack of experience drum and then pick someone who doesn't have a lot of experience? Again, it just shows that McCain is a complete hypocrite.

 

[WriterDom]

At the end of the day, my feelings about Sarah Palin are really more a reaction to McCain's pick for VP. How do you bang the lack of experience drum and then pick someone who doesn't have a lot of experience? Again, it just shows that McCain is a complete hypocrite.

Give him some credit. Politically it was brilliant. How they kept the lid on it. How they completely wiped out the big night for Obama as a news story. How he has energized the base with one move. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Sure, it's a gamble but that's what you do against a superior foe.

 

[00Syd]

Give him some credit. Politically it was brilliant. How they kept the lid on it. How they completely wiped out the big night for Obama as a news story. How he has energized the base with one move. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Sure, it's a gamble but that's what you do against a superior foe.

It just shows that he is more concerned with a short-term victory than long-term success. It makes me seriously question his Judgment.

 

[WriterDom]

It just shows that he is more concerned with a short-term victory than long-term success. It makes me seriously question his Judgment.

Second place is first loser. You think any politician puts country first? Perhaps Jimmy Carter and we all know how that turned out.

Politics isn't for sissies.

 

[intothewoods]

Give him some credit. Politically it was brilliant. How they kept the lid on it. How they completely wiped out the big night for Obama as a news story. How he has energized the base with one move. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Sure, it's a gamble but that's what you do against a superior foe.

I wasn't trying to be coy before. Sure, it was a great move, in that she was a relative unknown and a woman, and it upstaged Obama's night. Absolutely. On the other hand, it was a bit sloppy, in that there were a lot of things about Palin that have come back to bite McCain in the ass.

Palin immediately energized people. She's a great speaker, and has a story that appeals to people who like a familiar candidate. But it turns out there is more to that story, as has been discussed ad nauseum, and slowly the numbers are starting to turn again. You've got this big chunk of people who got on board in a big way, but they didn't all stay on board. There are just too many things to add up against Palin, and Dems are pretty energized themselves to get that message out there. It's close, no doubt, but it's just not over yet.

I also disagree that there was "one move" to energize the base. He's been working on social conservatives hard (like, sit downs with McCain) for the past six months. I am trying to find the Fresh Air show with the NY Times reporter who did the big piece on McCain. Maybe I should head to NY Times and find the piece itself. I was surprised to learn the entire story about McCain and his relationship to the religious right.

 

[intothewoods]

Second place is first loser. You think any politician puts country first? Perhaps Jimmy Carter and we all know how that turned out.

Politics isn't for sissies.

Yeah, that's why it's become so personal now against Palin. It turns me off completely, but Republicans made the rules, so I don't feel sorry for them.

 

[WriterDom]

Yeah, that's why it's become so personal now against Palin. It turns me off completely, but Republicans made the rules, so I don't feel sorry for them.

Yes, the Clintons were such nice wonderful people.

Come on, there is enough shit on both sides to fill the Grand Canyon.

 

[Netzach]

"She and her husband are members of a group which advocated seceding from the U.S. That seems pretty fringe to me."

If you listened to her interview instead of reading left wing blogs you'd know that isn't true.

Her husband is.

So if Michelle were Al Qaida for a few months no one would care. I'm just checking.

Since you know, secessionist right wing people DO blow buildings up from time to time, it seems to me prudent to assume the worst is possible.

 

[Netzach]

There are a lot of racist people in this country and I am sure that if Obama is elected, there will be attempts on his life. If one succeeds, can we honestly think Biden is any better than Palin?

Yes.

and Yes.

Joe will be surrounded with Obama picked people, who I believe will be a MUCH smarter and better crew than whoever McCain's got in his ear and a much different direction than the same damn people who have been making policy the last 8 years.

Also if he's SO crappy, he keeps getting put back in the senate umpteen times. One year of waving a veto pen around Alaska and having a vagina do not a president make.

 

[00Syd]

Second place is first loser. You think any politician puts country first? Perhaps Jimmy Carter and we all know how that turned out.

Politics isn't for sissies.

Yes, so lets keep voting for those same politicians that obviously care more about personal power than the country they are running.

Oh wait... that's not a bad thing, its just the spirit of capitalism, you dirty commie!

 

[Netzach]

She's also not just like everyone else. She's the very fringe of the "conservative right." Her church invites one of the leaders of the Jews for Jesus to speak.

No one will respond to this. Or the fact that she WON her position by implying the guy named "Stein" "isn't Christian, and I am"

That's pretty freaking Medieval and I say that to be kind and not call it a Nazi tactic. Stein was a Presbyterian or Methodist or something mainstream like that but that's not Christian enough to the foaming right.

Because fundamentally they don't care what this means. It's not them, we're just paranoid all the time. Why should some semites ruin the good times of the great Christian majority this country was founded by. (only it wasn't but who cares - BF the puritan would be appalled by the Christianity of the civic sphere today)

 

[intothewoods]

Yes, the Clintons were such nice wonderful people.

Come on, there is enough shit on both sides to fill the Grand Canyon.

Who said they were? She lost the last go around, if you remember.

 

[kinkyknickers]

I know this is very faintly related question, but you're talking politics, so it's close enough.
I'm from Australia and it's compulsory for us to vote here (you get a fine if you don't).
I was just wondering. do you guys always vote, or have you not voted before but will vote this time because of the serious trouble the USA could be facing with all of the bank collapses etc?

I'm just curious to see how the other side lives.

KK

 

[intothewoods]

No one will respond to this. Or the fact that she WON her position by implying the guy named "Stein" "isn't Christian, and I am"

That's pretty freaking Medieval and I say that to be kind and not call it a Nazi tactic. Stein was a Presbyterian or Methodist or something mainstream like that but that's not Christian enough to the foaming right.

Because fundamentally they don't care what this means. It's not them, we're just paranoid all the time. Why should some semites ruin the good times of the great Christian majority this country was founded by. (only it wasn't but who cares - BF the puritan would be appalled by the Christianity of the civic sphere today)

I actually hadn't heard the thing about the guy named "Stein" until you mentioned it before. I think the Jews in bed with the religious right need to wake the fuck up. Thanks, Lieby.

 

[Shankara20]

Give him some credit. Politically it was brilliant. How they kept the lid on it. How they completely wiped out the big night for Obama as a news story. How he has energized the base with one move. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Sure, it's a gamble but that's what you do against a superior foe.

I agree - when I stand back a watch politics as full-contact sport and this as the Super Bowl.

What a Hail Mary pass this is.....