Sarah Palin found something useful to do

[Evo]

Well on this I honestly do not believe Palin had any choice. She had to handle all the lawsuits on her own financially and was unable to do anything else. What else could she have done? It's not as if she couldn't stand the criticism in the media and decided to step down. And she certainly couldn't serve anyone while dealing with all the lawsuits.

Palin quit because she couldn't accept the lucrative deals she was offered while in office. She shafted the people that elected her for monetary gain. Remaining in office as Governor meant no money, it also meant no recognition, no one would pay attention to her now if she was simply to go back to being governor of Alaska.

Palin is cunning, conniving, and greedy. That makes her someone to not take lightly. Intelligence doesn't even come into it, enough desire is all that is needed to be dangerous and draw the ignorant to you as has been demonstrated all too often in history.

 

[Nebula815]

Palin quit because she couldn't accept the lucrative deals she was offered while in office. She shafted the people that elected her for monetary gain.

This is your opinion though, not a fact, as there is nothing to prove it and the evidence is against it. Resigning from governor is a foolish decision unless one feels they absolutely must. It looks bad. As for her exploiting opportunities for money after resigning, why not? She needed to make some money to pay off debts, so might as well.

But your opinion would be like someone on the Right saying, "Barack Obama is purposely trying to damage the economy so that he can justify increasing the size of the government to take over more control over people's lives, he is conniving, cunning, etc..." again there is nothing to prove such a statement.

Remaining in office as Governor meant no money, it also meant no recognition, no one would pay attention to her now if she was simply to go back to being governor of Alaska.

Plenty of attention was being paid to her from what I saw. She could have garnered attention by making a speech occassionally, appearing on talk shows to debate the issues, writing a book, preparing for a potential 2012 run, etc...she was definitely not lacking in attention and she would remain as one to watch of the GOP.

Palin is cunning, conniving, and greedy. That makes her someone to not take lightly. Intelligence doesn't even come into it, enough desire is all that is needed to be dangerous and draw the ignorant to you as has been demonstrated all too often in history.

Again, what is there to base this on? And what makes her any different than the other politicians if this is so to warrant such special dislike? You are not seriously going to tell me that Biden, Obama (in particular!), McCain, and Hillary (one of the most calculating of all politicians) are not the same?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How is she a crackpot?

Again, I provided a quote by you never responded. Statements like that are what create the animosity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

History describes where you were, not where you are.

That is true. Historically, the Republicans were actually conservatives. If they still were, they might find more support from people like me. But I'm not interested in supporting ideological zealots - a fringe representation of conservatism.

The fact that you consider Obama to be moderate despite the fact that his voting record was the most liberal of all senators is clear evidence you are not in touch with just how far to the left you really are.

I am judging Obama based on his goals and actions today, not what hate radio says he did ten years ago. The Republicans have made it clear that they their only goal is to take down Obama. They no longer have any credibility.

Why do I keep making the point about my voting history? So that people like you who are too young to remember when the Republicans were conservatives, might learn there is a difference.

The fact is that Obama is a pragmatist. That's why I voted for him and fully support him today. Now that the neocon ideology has brought the country to its knees - economically, socially [most divided I've ever seen the country], militarily, and in terms of global leadership and respectability - we can no longer afford to make decisions based on what amounts to a political religion; with Sarah Palin running as Pope.

 

[Nebula815]

Again, I provided a quote by you never responded. Statements like that are what create the animosity.

Not sure what you are getting at. I checked your links and agree she has said some really stupid things, I never denied that.

That is true. Historically, the Republicans were conservatives. If they still were, they might find more support from people like me. But I'm not interested in supporting ideological zealots.

I think that depends. Historically, the Republicans were for big-government a good deal of the time until Ronald Reagan. I mean Hoover was no fiscal conservative, limited government Republican. Eisenhower wasn't. Nixon wasn't (he might as well have been a hardcore Democrat economically). Ford wasn't. Reagan tried to be, but spent a lot on defense. G.H.W. Bush wasn't. G.W. Bush wasn't. McCain most certainly wasn't.

As for zealots, not sure what you mean here either. Both parties have their zealots, but both parties also have a range of views too.

Was wondering what is your specific definition of a conservative, and how does Barack Obama, a man whom most conservatives see as very center-left, closer to being that way then say McCain was?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not sure what you are getting at. I checked your links and agree she has said some really stupid things, I never denied that.

It wasn't just stupid, in fact it was anything but that. It was a calculated statement intended to attain a political objective through what amounts to a form of terrorism. Rather than helping to solve one of the greatest problems that we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care that will certainly take down the economy if not checked - she is terrorizing people with blatent lies. That statement is unforgivable by any measure. She is a crackpot.

I think that depends. Historically, the Republicans were for big-government a good deal of the time until Ronald Reagan. I mean Hoover was no fiscal conservative, limited government Republican. Eisenhower wasn't. Nixon wasn't (he might as well have been a hardcore Democrat economically). Ford wasn't. Reagan tried to be, but spent a lot on defense. G.H.W. Bush wasn't. G.W. Bush wasn't. McCain most certainly wasn't.

I am talking about the state of the country after the Republicans were given control. The result when taken in total: Disaster on an unprecedented level [at least arguably so], none of which results from conservative ideals. The only exception to that would be the collapse of the financial system, which stands as evidence that even my own ideology of minimum regulation has been taken to the point of absurdity. A minimum of regulation, yes, but the regulation of the financial systems was clearly far below an acceptable minimum value. The result: Disaster. And even then, when the economy was spiralling out of control and approaching oblivion, what did we find: Die-hard Republicans who would take down the nation rather than betray their ideology. They opposed the bailout. They put their ideology before the national interest. We cannot afford to govern according to [what amounts to] religious beliefs.

I have never been a fan of Boehner, but when he stood on the chamber floor and wept, while begging his Republican collegues to support the bailout, at least he showed where his loyalties lie - with the nation. I have to give him that one.

As for zealots, not sure what you mean here either. Both parties have their zealots, but both parties also have a range of views too.

Fine, you don't vote for Sarah Palin and I won't vote for Jesse Jackson.

I agree that the left has its nutjobs as well. That doesn't take away from the fact that Sarah is a nut from the extreme right.

Jim Webb is a great example of just how moderate the Democratic party has become. From my point of view, we now have three effective parties: The liberal Democrats, the moderate/conservative Democrats, and the Republicans, which now find their base in the old, white, South... and Alaska.

 

[Nebula815]

It wasn't just stupid, in fact it was anything but that. It was a calculated statement intended to attain a political objective through what amounts to a form of terrorism.

While I don't know if I would refer to them as "death panels," I would not call it terrorism. I believe she was referring to commissions that will have to be formed to decide on how to ration healthcare in such a system. Also, Palin has recommended the ways to cut costs in healthcare and increase its availability.

Rather than helping to solve one of the greatest problems that we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care that will certainly take down the economy if not checked -

Palin has recommended the strategies to cut costs and increase availability to healthcare (such as tort reform, remove ban on purchasing health insurance across state lines, etc...).

she is terrorizing people with blatent lies. That statement is unforgivable by any measure. She is a crackpot.

Well you cannot say she is "terrorizing" people on purpose, but then call her a "crackpot." A crackpot would be a person who truly believes in rather crazy theories even if they are totally wrong. For example, a 9/11 truther who truly believes that theory and the birthers and so forth, are crackpots. You believe she is purposely lying, which would make her the opposite of a crackpot, but a very intelligent conniver, by your view.

Also, by this standard, you would have to declare the guy whom you support, President Obama, as engaging in "terrorism" and being a "crackpot" because he is frightening people ("terrorism") with the idea that we have to create some massive bill to try and overhaul what amounts to one-sixth of the economy all at once or else the economy will be destroyed ("crackpot"). Yes, healthcare needs reform, but it is dishonest and irresponsible to say if this particular bill is not passed, the economy will die.

Instead, he is seeking a massive overhaul of the whole healthcare system at once, in a bill which no one knows what is really in it or how the whole thing will work once it is enacted, and the Democrats are seeking to make it un-reversible. His notion that if we do not pass this bill, that healthcare will destroy the economy, is wrong for a few reasons:

1) The bill does none of the things that would be needed to stop rising healthcare costs (like tort reform)

2) You don't try to reform 1/6 of the economy at once.

You are an engineer, right? Well what would you say if Boeing decided to just design the new 787 Dreamliner, then immediately after engineering it, put it right into production, start selling them, and then try to deal with any problems or design flaws once the aircraft are in operation.

Such an idea would be insane and ludicrous. No matter how sophisticated the engineering and the engineers, an aircraft has too many interconnected parts. No one can understand fully how they will all work together in the final aircraft, which is why they conduct such extensive tests with the aircraft before going into production.

Yet with healthcare, we are doing the policy equivalent of building a brand-new aircraft with all sorts of new components and parts and then putting it into production without testing it. There is no way to know how all the commissions, regulatory agencies, mandates, taxes, etc...will all inter-work once in effect.

It is just to keep the Democrat party, and President Obama, from having egg on their face. It could severely harm our economy due to its likely cost. If it somehow magically works like they claim, well great, but it is a huge risk to take and very likely will not.

I am talking about the state of the country after the Republicans were given control. The result when taken in total: Disaster on an unprecedented level [at least arguably so], none of which results from conservative ideals.

The Republicans spent too much money, trying to be "compassionate conservatives," so then you elect the guy who is going to go all-out in trying to create an entitlement utopia? You say you are conservative, but you support the guy who says he prefers single-payer healthcare?

The only exception to that would be the collapse of the financial system, which stands as evidence that even my own ideology of minimum regulation has been taken to the point of absurdity. A minimum of regulation, yes, but the regulation of the financial systems was clearly far below an acceptable minimum value. The result: Disaster.

Well by this argument, according to you the Republicans have governed too conservatively!

The Bush administration though tried to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under greater regulation, but were stopped repeatedly. It was Fannie/Freddie that took a recession and turned it into a global economic catastrophe.

As for regulation of the rest of the financial industry, the securities industry did need more regulation, but I don't think lack of regulation was taken to an extreme so much as the regulators simply couldn't keep up.

The SEC is overloaded with information as it is from the already existing regulations, let alone there being new regulations created to grasp those esoteric financial instruments that were being created.

Remember, one can regulate until they're blue in the face, it means nothing if the regulators can't keep track of all the information from the regulations.

What this means if re-regulation and/or increasing regulation isn't necessarilly the proper solution, we need to re-think how we oversee the financial system.

Another portion of the oversight that failed was the ratings agencies.

Also the big financial firms, and the ratings agencies, thought they were being risk-averse. It was widely thought we had reached a point where we could allocate capital incredibly efficiently.

If the big firms and ratings agencies couldn't see that the foundation was rotten, why should we think underpaid government regulators would?

And even then, when the economy was spiralling out of control and approaching oblivion, what did we find: Die-hard Republicans who would take down the nation rather than betray their ideology. They opposed the bailout. They put their ideology before the national interest. We cannot afford to govern according to [what amounts to] religious beliefs.

The Rush Limbaugh-Glenn Beck crowd perhaps, but that is because they did not realize what they were saying. The Republicans in charge bailed out the financial system. Also Sarah Palin supported the bailout.

Also, what you are saying I think could easily apply right now to the Democrats with healthcare:

"Die-hard Democrats who would [risk] taking down the nation rather than betray their ideology. They put their ideology before the national interest. We cannot afford to govern according to [what amounts to] religious beliefs."

I mean think about it, REFORM 1/6 OF THE ECONOMY ALL AT ONCE? AND SEEK TO MAKE THE REFORM UN-REVERSIBLE (!?)

Plus when we have Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt as is, both single-payer, government-run, health insurance companies?

Just a bad idea.

Fine, you don't vote for Sarah Palin and I won't vote for Jesse Jackson.

I will never vote for Sarah Palin unless she shows she is qualified, which means be very conversant in the issues.

I agree that the left has its nutjobs as well. That doesn't take away from the fact that Sarah is a nut from the extreme right.

I don't see her as any nut, just as extremely ignorant right now, but adhering to the basic, core conservative principles (limited government, fiscal conservatism, free-market capitalism, low taxes, etc...).

Jim Webb is a great example of just how moderate the Democratic party has become.

Webb, on paper, is pretty conservative, however he just voted for the healthcare bill. His, and the other "moderate Democrats," votes in favor of it I think kind of explodes the idea of the moderate Democrat. No moderate Democrat could support a bill like this.

From my point of view, we now have three effective parties: The liberal Democrats, the moderate/conservative Democrats, and the Republicans, which now find their base in the old, white, South... and Alaska.

The Republicans have been attracting a lot more moderates lately. The party as a whole goes from center to center-right. Most of the establishment GOP in power is the center-right version right now (they actually were rather left on the idea of big government, just they disagree with the Democrats on the specific kind of big-government the nation should have). The Democrats have center to center-left members, but not really any centrists in power at the moment as I see it; all of their members in power seem to be center-left to just hard left even.

 

[WhoWee]

This one is smarter than you people give her credit for. Next time she's up for election she's going to know the issues much better, and she gets air time every single day in the process while being paid. Smart move on her part.

Astute observation Cyrus.

During the election, her weakness was her (apparent) grasp of or (perhaps) specific comfort level discussing national and world current events and the accompanying talking points. Now she will be immersed in the day to day news and issues. The best way to learn a new language is to immerse yourself in it.

Further, she will now have a chance to sit back and comment on the mistakes of her rivals.

 

[edpell]

Why does anyone still believe that the talking head in the Whitehouse has control? This is regardless of who does the talking for the moneyed interests.