July 03, 2009
She's not who we thought she was
I agree with Ed Morrissey, it's the end of Sarah Palin. What she had, more than anything else, was a toughness and a dedication to her position. She blew all that with her announcement today.
Posted by Karol at July 3, 2009 05:51 PM
Technorati Tags: Sarah+Palin
I just read the full text of her official statement. She is dedicated to her position, but time, state taxpayer dollars, and her own money are being wasted dealing with frivolous ethics claims brought (under a law she got passed) by political enemies. She's got a good Lt Gov in Sean Parnell who will keep the drive for reform moving forward in Juneau, and by leaving now, she's giving him a leg up toward winning a full term in 2010.
By sacrificing her own career, she allows her platform for the state to move forward and protects her family. That is the sort of selfless action I would expect from her.
The stars are aligning....
Huntsman, Ensign, Sanford, Palin.....now we need Romney to do something dumb and we're all set.
Dude, who the hell is Huntsman?
This is really strange and the timing is weird-especially as Ensign and Sanford blew up the past few weeks. Palin was thought to have no experience so she goes and quits. She was supposed to be a tough froniter woman and she quits. The Republican bench is looking awfully thin despite the likes of Mike Pence heading out to Iowa (let's just hope he doesn't talk about online poker or comparing an operation with troops, kevlar vests and helicopters in Baghdad to an Indiana fair). Romney and Huckabee have had great first halfs of 2009 since the rest of the damn field has either blown up or shown they aren't ready for prime time (say when was the last time we heard anything about the national ambitions of Piyush Amrit Jindal? Not since the State of the Union). I keep on thinking Obama is making serious mistakes and leaving himself open to attack-and then I see Michael Steele's team. Help us Haley B Wan Kenobi. You're our only hope.
Dude, Jon Huntsman..Governor of Utah....and you call yourself a political junkie/analyst?
shto ti znayesh, blyat?
I know who he is, vasya, just wondering on what planet he was even half in the running to be a GOP presidential candidate.
ah, Larry is really Vasya?
Now, that explains everything!
Karol, there are opinions (which I started to think make sense), that it was the best practical decision in the circumstances Palin and family is experiencing. Particularly optimistic comment I saw suggested that she's stepped out in order for new Alaskan governor to name her a Senator when the time comes - and she can bring much needed debate in Senate, god knows.
If that's the strategy, I'm all for it. Traditional politological markers ("she quit, so she's toast") are for conventional times; ours is nothing but. America never had an aggressive lefty as a President before; we are close to dictatorship of the most primitive African-socialist variety. In these circumstances I wouldn't discount Palin yet.
people were talking about Huntsman as a candidate.
Nobody was talking about Huntsman (or Ensign, for that matter) as a candidate. Ever.
Huntsman is a goddamn joke. Like I said before about him and Romney, it isn't the religion. It's that there are a couple of state-worshipping jackasses who happen to be Mormon.
Yes, Larry, go ahead and get your candidate nominated. He can talk good lines about aligning man's law with God's law, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to create jobs so that I-95 can have two more lanes. It'll be the end of the end of the GOP. Maybe, though, that's what it'll take for you to pull your head out of your ass.
Now back on topic, I was wondering yesterday if it was a deal. She had pissed off the Murkowskian establishment even before she defeated Frank in the primary, and this could be her not-quite-graceful exit. A lot of ethics charges are coming from within her own party, and at least one minor one has stuck (it should be noted she repaid the cost, albeit only after it was brought to light). She's a lame duck, anyhow.
She isn't as great as I originally had thought/hoped, but in sympathy, I can't imagine holding a high office and having my family viciously attacked like this. They've been dragged through the mud by everyone from MSM journalists to goddamn Letterman.
So she bails, and they leave her and her family alone.
Karol, Huntsman and Ensign were being talked about...you were too busy on the wedding blog to pay attention :)
Hahahaha....the Huck haters are funny....always nitpicking....always looking for reasons to hate.
Nice dodge, fuckwit. Try again. The huckster doesn't deny his proposal to blow $150 billion, and he wants to align man's law with God's law. If he's not serious, then he's lying to get votes. So which is it?
Good lord, you're so blind that he could call you a Christ-killer, and you'd still be sucking him dry.
keep on twisting words, distorting the record, etc.
The Huckaboom 2.0...learn to love it, baby!!!!!
There was plenty of talk about Ensign 2012:
There's nothing to "twist," fuckwit. He said everything in plain black and white: $150 billion for "infrastructure," and man's law aligning with God's law. We've been down this road before, but you are so utterly blind to anything factual.
Good grief, you really are an idiot. Keep your head up your ass as long as you want. The rest of us will live in reality.
I write this with respect so I hope you take it with respect.
I met you once at a party and you seemed like a very rational and intelligent human being. I've read your blog and your comments here on Alarming News and you are obviously highly lucid and erudite. You are also charmingly human, evidenced by your fawning over your then fiance at the previously mentioned party.
So why then do you insist on being so vulgar in your discourse? Surely someone of your evolved intellect can beat down arguments with nothing more than charm, wit and a factual riposte rather than stooping to calling another person a 'fuckwit', an 'idiot, and the like. The true art of rhetoric, after all, is a series of logical steps to reach a necessary concluson. It is not the debasing of another person.
Therefore, please, uphold my first image of you and set a pleasant example for others to follow. Win your arguments the old-fashioned way, by being the right and not by being nasty.
Perry can't win an argument the old fashioned way...that's the point....he's banging his head against the wall trying to make the same stupid, distorted points he's been making the past year....
for example, he keeps talking about infrastructure spending...well, what's wrong with infrastructure spending?..and i'm not talking about bridges to nowhere.
then he talks about the "god's law" comment...it was obviously a poor choice of words that even Huck admitted came out wrong...I knew what he meant when he said it...he was strictly talking about life and marriage...nothing more, nothing less....but the haters had to twist his words..making it sound like we'll be a theocratic state.
Do you see what I mean Perry? Good man, clever. Why the 'tude?
@ Jamie: I'm afraid I don't remember you. When was that party, and did I ever give you one of my blog cards?
You'll find that when you're nice to me, I'm nice back. Thus I take no offense at all. To begin: you're proceeding from the false assumption that we're engaging in the art of "rhetoric." It's false for two reasons. The first is that this is the Internet. The second is that when it comes to individual liberty, I have no reason to be "nice" to those who infringe upon me.
I'm a nice enough person, but I have no patience for little children like Larry and our visiting Canucks. I will throw around vulgarities because that is all they are, and that treatment is all they deserve. They deserve no respect. In Larry's case, it's because he's willfully blind about his candidate's positions. In the Canuck's (or Canucks'?) case, it's because I do not tolerate people stealing from me, even if it's through their fabrication called "government."
If you check around here and my own blog, you'll see plenty of reasoned discussions I've had. In no way have I ever demanded that people agree with me. Karol and I aren't very ideologically similar -- I'm actually far more "radical" than even most self-professed libertarians -- yet we're friends and can talk reasonably. I've met various commenters here a time or two, and though I can't properly call them friends, we can still carry on civil discussions here.
See how you and I are nice to each other, and I can be blunt yet act gentlemanly? (And see that, anonymous Canuck? Think about how you first replied to me, and how you deserve every bit of my scorn thereafter.) But if someone wants to attack me or be boneheaded-stupid, I pull no punches.
You only met me that once, so you didn't see that unlike others who show "attitude" only online, I'm like this in real life as well. I'm not a person to cross, I assure you.
@ Larry: there's nothing to distort. Keep deluding yourself, fuckwit. If you'd like, here's a flashback: you didn't know if the President could issue pardons to murderers. You couldn't even be bothered to look it up before posting, evidently. And people like you, who clearly are ignorant of the Constitution, can vote?
Your huckster said, "If we're going to spend $150 billion, I'd like to suggest that maybe we add two lanes of highway from Bangor all the way to Miami on I-95. A third of the United States population lives within 100 miles of that." What is "distorted" about that? Can't you read?
If the government spends $150 billion on a project, do you not understand that it requires taking $150 billion from the private sector in the form of taxes? This nation already has a $2 trillion deficit for just this fiscal year -- where is the money going to come from? Out of your ass, or Ben Bernanke's?
Taxes mean that the private sector, you and I, have less money to spend on whatever we want. Ergo, there's no "stimulus" whatsoever. As I have explained before, there's no net economic increase. There may be an increase in government spending with an equal, corresponding drop in private individuals' spending. You'll point to government-supported jobs, but there will be private jobs lost to an equal monetary extent. If I'm taxed $1000 a week, that might support some government-based construction jobs, but that means I can't buy a plasma TV. Do you see?
Well, I honestly don't expect you to understand this simple bit of economics, but this may edify others who are reading this.
You keep falling back to the excuse "poor choice of words," and that's the kind of person you want in the Oval Office? Someone who will "misspeak" and start trade wars or real wars?
Either that liar was sincere, or he was pandering. You claim he wasn't sincere, so then he was telling the crowd what they want to hear. Now, you really want a GOP equivalent of Obama, i.e. someone who will say whatever it takes to get elected?
You've previously said, "I don't know every single detail behind the fair tax, but it seems like less government, less taxation; more personal freedom." In fact, I debunked every single thing about it, but you're too busy sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "NYA NYA NYA!" like a schoolboy.
The "Fair" Tax is a shift from one bureaucracy to another. In the end, its purpose is to recover the same amount of revenue for the federal government. You might as well talk about the difference betweeen the Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst.
Where are all the government cuts your candidate has proposed? There are none. He wants the same amount of federal spending at minimum, and in fact more spending on infrastructure with money the feds already can't tax.
And to the Canuck: when you grow two neurons and a working synapse, and perhaps enough guts to show who you really are, then come on back and we'll have a discussion. Until then, scrub, go away like the parasite you are.
HAHAHA...I laugh at your insults..quite amusing...
all I'll say is this....
When Mike mentioned the infrastructure spending it was in reference to the rebate checks bush was handing out....he said if we're going to spend that money, it would be better spent on infrastructure....most people would agree.
keep distorting....go support ron paul, bob barr..whomever.
If your liar candidate had any principles or integrity whatsoever, he'd have said something like this:
"The best use of the money is to return it to the people from which it was taken in the first place."
So you think that blowing $150 billion dollars, which we the federal taxpayers already cannot afford, is a good thing? You and the liar are exactly why the GOP can't do anything to limit the government in any state. You're so goddamn willing to "compromise" that you fight only over how to spend it, not that taxpayers are continually raped.
So answer the fookin' question: where do you suppose that money is going to come from? Out of your ass, or Ben Bernanke's?
If we want a president who believes in raising taxes, expanding government and blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on "stimulus," we already have plenty of Democrats to choose from. We don't need your lying Republican as another. Like I said, get his cock out of your mouth. It's not kosher.
Oh, and you may try to demean Ron Paul, but in his voting he's far more principled than anyone you'd ever support. I still disagree with him on Iraq, but the one thing he said was true: we should do it by the Constitution and declare war, dropping all political pretenses.