Why Did Sarah Palin Resign as Governor?

[math_04]

I await the Book tour. That will be a gauntlet of interviews that will surely rain more entertaining nuggets from the Sarah Tree.

I can hardly wait for her book to come out Probably will be an impassioned plea for Americans to understand that she can actually see Russia from her house, the global media conspiracy to discredit her and her family, and a 100 page diatribe against her would be son in law Levi Johnston and David Letterman.

 

[GeorginaS]

Maureen Dowd is a bit (understatement) brutal in her column, but interestingly close to the mark.

What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.

Entire ripping analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html

 

[WheelsRCool]

Can we keep it to Sarah Palin? These long screeds may make people feel better that write them, but frankly I don't read them.

Pithiness is in too short a supply.

Translation: You have no ability to refute.

And I keep it to Sarah Palin. But when you're one guy defending Sarah Palin versus an entire forum criticizing your comments, you try to answer each one, and with some detail.

From my point of view, she already had a huge credibility problem. She made a very poor showing in 08 and the ONLY reason for her intense popularity early on was that she was a gun-toten spinster [as in political spin] that no one knew anything about. Once people got to know a little about her, and due to her laughable performance, she became a liability to McCain.

This is nonsense and completely baseless. Our current President is who had a huge credibility problem. So did Joseph Biden. Both still do. No one seemed to have any problem with them though.

Now, by abandoning her post, she has destroyed any chance that she had to demonstrate that she was ready to run for Federal office.

She has only proven again that she cannot be taken seriously.

Show me how either Barack Obama or Joseph Biden ever showed they could be taken seriously. In what way at all did either show they were qualified for the position of President and VP? The truth is they did not.

I never said you did. Palin is pro-life. She is the one we are talking about. You say she is immune to attacks on the abortion issue simply because she has not had one? That's a rather poor argument in my opinion. I doubt that she has ever been poor either. That doesn't mean she is immune to attack on issues reagarding the poor (this is an example, not an insinuation that she has a bad record regarding poverty).

Oh I am not saying one cannot criticize her for being pro-life if one is pro-choice. I just meant as a pro-life person, she adheres to her belief, so to attack her on it is a lot tougher.

It's like say if a politician supported the Iraq War when having fought in Vietnam. Does this make the politician immune from attacks per se, the "You support a war but never fought in one!" type of stuff? Yes. Does this mean one cannot criticize their position however? Not at all.

I do not deny that there are women who would vote for Palin. I think though that you are greatly exaggerating her influence. Obviously there are people who voted her into office as governor. There are also people who voted an Action Movie Star into office, a Pro Wrestler, and currently there is even a Porn Star garnering support to be elected for office.

If I am greatly exaggerating her influence, there would be no concern over her (or rejoice right now) from the political left. And Barack Obama would have won a landslide popular vote-wise, which he didn't (he won a landslide in terms of electoral votes however).

You could say that about any polling.

Well I think polls such as Rasmussen, Gallup, and a few others are reputable and non-partisan.

And the left needn't a real threat to be vicious detractors. Many of them will pounce on any opportunity to paint the right poorly in general. Palin is a prime target for making the right look bad the same way Ventura is a prime target for making independents look like nuts.

Political opponents don't go after those who make the opposition party look bad, because the people doing that are their own undoing.

For example, there is no need for Republicans to go after Vice President Biden who makes the Democrats look stupid because he does this himself. There would be little need to do after Denis Kucinich who makes the Democrats look nuts because he does this himself.

There IS need to go after those that have much appeal and make the opposition party look good. Such people constitute a threat and must be brought down. Sarah Palin, right now, is one of those, no matter how much hatemongering or namecalling the left spew for the time being.

The woman has mental issues, and the only question here is what self promotion angle is she planning? Does anyone doubt that this is the prelude to some scheme?

Specify...in what way does she have "mental issues?"

Well I guess that's how the Governator got started. Does that mean she's taking a step backwards?

She is a woman who has had five children who still has a nice build and body because she does a lot of running.

She was doing an interview with a running magazine. What do they expect, she's going to start talking about how to improve healthcare, education, government, foreign policy, etc...she just said she could see herself in D.C. promoting physical fitness and the benefits of running. I doubt she's going to go off on a tangent and say, "I can see myself in D.C. promoting change in our government, etc..."

And yes, actually that CAN do some good if a politician can inspire people to be more fit. If we could get rid of obesity in this country, we would automatically shave trillions off the healthcare system from obesity-related diseases. Palin shows one can have five children and work a full-time job and so forth and still keep a good build. That can resonate with a lot of people, in particular women.

Granted the comment was made to Runner's World. But still and all, I doubt she could go 1 on 1 against the Big O, that inhabits the White House.

Pretty much anyone with a decent understanding of the issues could very easily go 1 on 1 with the Big O. If the big O is so "Big," then why didn't he take on people like Sean Hannity in an all-out debate?

The truth is he is an ideologue and is profoundly ignorant on many of the issues, and there is nothing anybody can say to refute that.

I think it really reveals that she is grasping for an agenda or an issue to promote.

Otherwise, we will have to await Barracuda - The Book to find out what vapid policy agenda she will be pinning her hopes by latching on to.

Specify...in what way were Barack Obama's policies not vapid?

Because technically all he did was take a big pile of crap (there is a much more appropriate four-letter word for his policies, but I can't use it here), shape it to look like Swiss chocolate, and presented it to the public.

Many thought it was Swiss chocolate. Others couldn't tell. Some knew something didn't smell right. All will know what it really is if/when it starts really getting rammed down their throats in the near future. He ran on the same tired old nonsense the left have been promoting for years. No change whatsoever.

I await the Book tour. That will be a gauntlet of interviews that will surely rain more entertaining nuggets from the Sarah Tree.

Her last interview she did fairly well and backed the guy into a corner on a few things. I would underestimate her at all.

y'know, we could just wait and see what happens

Wisest post in the whole thread!

 

[WheelsRCool]

Maureen Dowd is a bit (understatement) brutal in her column, but interestingly close to the mark.
Entire ripping analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html

"Mean" is a little bit of an understatement. No politician in recent memory has been so harassed and put through such scrutiny.

Furthermore, I do not remember anyone complaining back when Barack Obama was whining about Sean Hannity and Fox News tanking his poll numbers.

 

[cristo]

Her daughter went and got knocked up. I doubt she would have kept, or even had, the baby if she really didn't want it.

How can you make claims like this? Do you really think that the daughter of a politician who is so anti-abortion is going to be allowed to have an abortion in the middle of a presidential campaign?

However, in modern America, I don't think her daughter would need any family. The government will provide her with Medicaid, an apartment, a welfare check, food stamps, and so forth. Or maybe that's just New York State where I am? I know it's the "cool" thing among many young girls, just pop out a kid, and the government gives you all the above, and you can have parties and so forth, pop out a second kid and you get a bigger apartment (an example of a social program incentivizing bad behavior).

When raising a child it is not nearly enough to be just given apartments, cash, food, etc.. that isn't support! You could have all the money and material things in the world and still be a terrible, unsupported parent!

 

[cristo]

And yes, actually that CAN do some good if a politician can inspire people to be more fit. If we could get rid of obesity in this country, we would automatically shave trillions off the healthcare system from obesity-related diseases. Palin shows one can have five children and work a full-time job and so forth and still keep a good build.

But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!

 

[math_04]

Show me how either Barack Obama or Joseph Biden ever showed they could be taken seriously. In what way at all did either show they were qualified for the position of President and VP? The truth is they did not.

They did not, Obama was humble enough to say that his foreign policy credentials were not great but that he was willing to learn. Compare that to Sarah Palin who said that she dabbled in foreign policy affairs just because Vladimir Putin flew over the state she governed.

This is nonsense and completely baseless. Our current President is who had a huge credibility problem. So did Joseph Biden. Both still do. No one seemed to have any problem with them though.

What credibility problem does the current Obama administration have? You seem to be making a lot of rhetorical statements without elaborating. And if you are going to start talking about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's middle name or citizenship and socialism, please note that there have been countless discussions on that. It is Sarah Palin who has credibility problems when she cannot even understand what the job of vice president entails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H1hKaHDSvg&feature=fvst

Furthermore, I do not remember anyone complaining back when Barack Obama was whining about Sean Hannity and Fox News tanking his poll numbers.

Why should anyone complain? If Sarah Palin feels that the media have it against her, no one will complain her right to fight against it. But then again, when she obsessively blames the media for all her problems and gets into hissy fits and possible lawsuits, people wonder whether she is just thin skinned or unstable.

Pretty much anyone with a decent understanding of the issues could very easily go 1 on 1 with the Big O. If the big O is so "Big," then why didn't he take on people like Sean Hannity in an all-out debate?

Obama already debated with Bill O'Reilly on a number of issues. Sean Hannity? All Hannity does is criticize Obama and if the President had gone on the show, instead of focusing on the real issues at hand like the economy and foreign policy, he would probably focus the whole interview on whether the President is really an American, whether he hates white people and other absurd, ridiculous questions

I haven't seen anything racist or prejudiced from her church. If they believe in the End of Days, whatever, that's their belief. No different than the similar End of Days the global warming fearmongers currently in charge believe in. The Reverand Wright issue was because he said racist and anti-American things, had a history that suggested racism, and the hypocrisy the left showed on this; the mainstream media, they were going to cover that whole thing up! Do you really think they would have done so with a Republican? NO WAY.

Your arguments are incoherent and you keep jumping from one issue to another. The mainstream media have been portraying Sarah Palin in all her glory which includes interviews and speeches where she mumbles incoherently, illogically and shows a gross ignorance of the world at large. She leaves the media no choice.

 

[WheelsRCool]

How can you make claims like this? Do you really think that the daughter of a politician who is so anti-abortion is going to be allowed to have an abortion in the middle of a presidential campaign?

Ahh, I'm forgetting Bristol is under eighteen (or was at the time), my mistake. Sarah Palin probably would not have consented to the abortion then.

When raising a child it is not nearly enough to be just given apartments, cash, food, etc.. that isn't support! You could have all the money and material things in the world and still be a terrible, unsupported parent!

Perhaps not, BUT IT SURE HELPS to have your apartment paid for, cash, food stamps (actually a card now I think), Medicaid, and so forth. It makes things easier.

But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!

Todd Palin isn't an engineer, he's a pipeline worker unless he advanced as of late. And this means nothing. In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt.

Most people prefer a 9 to 5 and that's it. Your highly-paid lawyers, doctors, and so forth, don't get to their level of high pay without working hard and long hours, oftentimes over 60+ hours a week. One would think such people would have less time to workout.

And BTW, $250K isn't rich, nowhere near in fact.

Obesity is prevalent because

1) Americans eat too much bad food (but don't worry, with universal healthcare, maybe government will levy a huge tax on it)

2) People in general are lazy and don't exercise at all

They did not, Obama was humble enough to say that his foreign policy credentials were not great but that he was willing to learn. Compare that to Sarah Palin who said that she dabbled in foreign policy affairs just because Vladimir Putin flew over the state she governed.

He had no foreign policy credentials whatsoever, none of them did. He originally talked about bombing Pakistan, referred to Iran as a "tiny country," and said he would sit down with foreign dictators without preconditions. He was learning on-the-fly.

And that has nothing to do with her willingness to learn on the issues. In other words, neither of them was very knowledgeable on foreign policy issues at the time, but both are willing to learn.

What credibility problem does the current Obama administration have? You seem to be making a lot of rhetorical statements without elaborating. And if you are going to start talking about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's middle name or citizenship and socialism, please note that there have been countless discussions on that.

His credibility problem is that he yes, he is either a racist or okay with racists and there is nothing anybody can say to refute that, and two, he never showed any in-depth knowledge or reasoning for any of the crazy policies he has been espousing.

He wants to ram his holy trinity of healthcare, education, and energy big government plans down our throats with no real debate on the subject whatsoever.

It is Sarah Palin who has credibility problems when she cannot even understand what the job of vice president entails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H1hKaHDSvg&feature=

Please. Of course it was fine for Biden to say FDR was President during the 1929 crash and there were televisions then (this a flub we all know they'd have had to pull Palin from the ticket if she'd made it).

Or that Biden is a proven liar. Or that he's been wrong on a great many foreign policy issues for years.

But he was perfectly qualified for VP

Why should anyone complain? If Sarah Palin feels that the media have it against her, no one will complain her right to fight against it. But then again, when she obsessively blames the media for all her problems and gets into hissy fits and possible lawsuits, people wonder whether she is just thin skinned or unstable.

Perhaps "criticism" is the word I should have used, not complain. And I know of no "hissy fits" she gets into or lawsuits, aside from numerous baseless ethics charges brought against her.

And I think you need to take a look at Barack Obama who obsessively blames the media (actually Fox News) for things (George Stephanopoulos commented on this recently about his apparent obsession with the network).

Obama already debated with Bill O'Reilly on a number of issues.

Only a short little debate done only because he had to because he'd promised O'Reilly, and O'Reilly was playing the clip and then saying he was dishonest. O'Reilly has too large a viewership (a lot of moderates watch him in fact). There was little in-depth debate because they did not have time to go into the issues that much.

Sean Hannity? All Hannity does is criticize Obama and if the President had gone on the show, instead of focusing on the real issues at hand like the economy and foreign policy, he would probably focus the whole interview on whether the President is really an American, whether he hates white people and other absurd, ridiculous questions

Complete and total nonsense. First of all, the Reverand Wright issue was not any "absurd, ridiculous question." It was a completely legitimate issue. You're going to run for President, people question who you allied yourself with, especially someone like that. He would have asked him:

1) Why is he so familiar with the principles of radical Saul Alinsky? (there is a picture of Obama teaching the principles of Alinsky and three of his mentors studied at a school founded by Alinsky)

2) Why he attended a dinner in 2003 for Rashid Khalidi, a man holding anti-Israeli views.

3) What was his relationship to Frank Marshall Davis?

4) Why did he sit in a church for twenty years with a radical race-baiting pastor who seems to have anti-American views whom he became very close to (had him marry him to his wife and baptize his children, along with as a campaign advisor I believe, and referred to him as a father figure)

5) Why he wants to nationalize healthcare (have an in-depth discussion)

6) Why he wants to enact carbon cap-and-trade (have an in-depth discussion on how this would create jobs and not destroy them)

7) Why he has such an extremist view on abortion

8) Why he wants to put activist justices on the Supreme Court

9) Why he would sit down with foreign leaders without pre-conditions

10) Why he wants to "spread the wealth" and how that is not socialist

11) What does he mean when he speaks of "economic justice," restoring "fairness" to the tax code, what he means by "fair trade," and all that other arbitrary statist crap.

12) How his policies are not the same old leftwing socialist statist nonsense they've been pushing for years.

Have you gone to her church? How can you be so confident in your judgement?

I am plenty confident on my judgement of the Reverand Wright issue. I am plenty confident when I can clearly see the left's religion of environmentalism and their wanting to use it to force big government down our throats.

 

[math_04]

He had no foreign policy credentials whatsoever, none of them did. He originally talked about bombing Pakistan, referred to Iran as a "tiny country," and said he would sit down with foreign dictators without preconditions. He was learning on-the-fly.

What is wrong with learning as you go? A hallmark of a great, successful person is the willingness to listen and learn from past experiences whether good or bad.

As for all those questions, most of them have been answered by Obama. As far as I am concerned, they seem logical and follow reason. In fact, a few of them were answered on the O'Reilly factor.

I am plenty confident on my judgement of the Reverand Wright issue. I am plenty confident when I can clearly see the left's religion of environmentalism and their wanting to use it to force big government down our throats.

I asked you whether you were confident that Palin's pastor was not making any hateful remarks aimed at fellow Americans. Again you keep moving from topic to topic and your statements are illogical. Environmentalism is there to protect our planet and future generations from possible suffering.

Only a short little debate done only because he had to because he'd promised O'Reilly, and O'Reilly was playing the clip and then saying he was dishonest. O'Reilly has too large a viewership (a lot of moderates watch him in fact). There was little in-depth debate because they did not have time to go into the issues that much.

The debate lasted for very nearly an hour. So just because the O'Reilly factor is watched by moderates, it automatically does not count? So Bill O'Reilly has to have a certain amount of airtime devoted to bashing Obama heavily and illogically before the show can regain credibility in the eyes of the conservatives.

This is exactly the kind of polarizing effect that can seriously damage America, conservatives have to attack Obama because he is not a conservative or because he does not believe in their values. To be honest, the Couric-Palin interview was much easier to negotiate than the O'Reilly interview, Palin failed because she could not string an eloquent, logical sentence together and not because the interviewer was harsh.

He wants to ram his holy trinity of healthcare, education, and energy big government plans down our throats with no real debate on the subject whatsoever.

There are numerous debates in congress and Obama has been going around hosting town hall meetings with ordinary citizens trying to promote his administration's plans in regards to the economy, health care etc. Compare that to Palin who struts around and calls every plan that the Obama administration proposes as socialism without even knowing its definition.

 

[WheelsRCool]

What is wrong with learning as you go? A hallmark of a great, successful person is the willingness to listen and learn from past experiences whether good or bad.

If that is the case, then why was there any criticism over Palin's "lack" of foreign policy knowledge/experience? She was willing to learn and I think still is. She matched Joseph Biden in the VP debate.

Obama was running for President however. He should not have chosen to run without first being learned in the subjects. And McCain should not have chosen to run without knowing the economy (although Barack Obama didn't know that really either).

As for all those questions, most of them have been answered by Obama. As far as I am concerned, they seem logical and follow reason. In fact, a few of them were answered on the O'Reilly factor.

Not all of them, only some of them, and sort of. And none in-depth.

I asked you whether you were confident that Palin's pastor was not making any hateful remarks aimed at fellow Americans. Again you keep moving from topic to topic and your statements are illogical. Environmentalism is there to protect our planet and future generations from possible suffering.

I was just coming back to answer about Palin's church, had forgotten about that; I cannot be 100% confident her church never said such things, however, one would think if her church or pastor had said such things, she would have made it aware to the McCain campaign before joining, because it for sure would have come out in time.

I also would think the McCain campaign would have vetted her as best they could, and that would include the church.

Since nothing such has come out, and with so many out to get her, I think it is safe to assume her church is okay until otherwise disproven.

As for environmentalism, decent environmentalism is fine. But the religion of environmentalism, which is anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, anti-American (as we are the biggest "polluter"), is not. Global warming is a highly controversial theory right now with no one having any full arguments either way. Rushing to ram a carbon tax bill on the public as the President is trying is crazy right now.

Even if real, who says a carbon tax is the solution? No one knows for sure if the planet is warming, if so, if by humans, or just naturally, or by the Sun, and if being warmed, naturally or by humans, if warming will be bad, etc...and if it will be bad, how to stop it.

How will such a bill help with moving us off of foreign oil? Windmills, solar, etc...even if viable, won't do it. Oil is needed for fuel to run autos. Is President Obama aware that some say moving off of foreign oil is not possible or desirable? And such.

Extreme environmentalism has wrecked businesses, has led to millions of deaths in Africa from the not allowing nations there to use DDT to kill pests, and makes claims that are often groundless and can lead to catostrophe (such as the claim that species are dying at enormous rates or that trees are precious; for example, the environmental groups in California that hate the timber industry, even though we have more trees per capita today than we did 150 years ago, nevertheless, they will not cut much of the underbrush and dead trees in California forests, so those forests catch fire easily and create huge fires).

Notice no privately-owned and maintained forests by the big paper companies catch fire and burn down people's homes, because they clear out the underbrush, cut down the dead trees, and so forth, so it is far tougher for a fire to start.

Or the view that trees are somehow "sacred," when they're really just a big plant that can be regarded as a weed in a sense, as they suck up lots of water and block out the sunlight, making it tougher for other plants to survive.

Or the environmentalist view, I'm sure you've heard it, that nature uninhabited by humans is "un-spoiled, pristine, etc..." those are religious views.

I believe I read somewhere that the reason there is such gridlock in the Los Angelos highway system is because it's meant to handle 1960s traffic, not 21st century traffic levels. The solution would be to build some more highways for more cars, but the environmentalists put a stop to that.

The debate lasted for very nearly an hour. So just because the O'Reilly factor is watched by moderates, it automatically does not count? So Bill O'Reilly has to have a certain amount of airtime devoted to bashing Obama heavily and illogically before the show can regain credibility in the eyes of the conservatives.

NOOO. You mist-understood me. I meant that since the show is watched by moderates, Barack Obama had to do it.

This is exactly the kind of polarizing effect that can seriously damage America, conservatives have to attack Obama because he is not a conservative or because he does not believe in their values.

They criticize him because his "values" are a good deal fundamentally anti-American.

To be honest, the Couric-Palin interview was much easier to negotiate than the O'Reilly interview, Palin failed because she could not string an eloquent, logical sentence together and not because the interviewer was harsh.

Couric-Palin interview wasn't good, I agree.

[quote[There are numerous debates in congress and Obama has been going around hosting town hall meetings with ordinary citizens trying to promote his administration's plans in regards to the economy, health care etc. Compare that to Palin who struts around and calls every plan that the Obama administration proposes as socialism without even knowing its definition.[/QUOTE]

When you think big-government will fix everything, that is ultimately grounded in socialism. However, Palin does need to learn to articulate her views better. If she is smart, that is one reason why she resigned, if the job was keeping her from that. She cannot keep speaking in platitudes, that's okay at the start, but not as you advance.

Regarding President "O," his healthcare "town hall" recently did not permit opposing viewpoints. For example, he says you will be allowed to keep your existing health plan. But what if the public plan drives the private health insurance industry out of business? Many proponents of single-payer want to get to it via universal healthcare because of this very fact. Why should we think it will lower costs? How will rationing not occur? Is he aware the private health insurance sector is not a "free-market" so-to-speak. And so forth.

On carbon tax, I'd like to ask:

1) Why is carbon even considered a pollutant, when it isn't?
2) Why does he say "the debate is over" when it is not?
3) How will it create jobs and not harm the economy?
4) How is it not an incredible tax on everyone, and a very regressive one at that?
5) What kind of control is this going to give to government? It looks like a massive power grab.
6) Why does it apply California's housing standards nationwide when that state has wrecked its economy with its policies?

and so forth.

 

[Redbelly98]

The woman has mental issues, and the only question here is what self promotion angle is she planning? Does anyone doubt that this is the prelude to some scheme?

That's what I thought at first. Another possibility is that some scandal is about to break, or would have broken had she stayed in office.

 

[cristo]

Todd Palin isn't an engineer, he's a pipeline worker unless he advanced as of late. And this means nothing.

Really?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/30/wealth-makes-palins-no-ordinary-alaskans/?page=3

After Mrs. Palin's election as governor in 2006, Mr. Palin took a cut in his $120,000 annual pay as an engineer at BP in Prudhoe Bay to be to be an oil production operator at $46,790 a year.

...

Last year, Mrs. Palin received $125,000 as governor and Mr. Palin, an oil production operator and commercial fisherman, earned $93,000, along with $22,500 as a professional snow-machine racer.

It seems like he was an engineer, but took a demotion when Palin became governor. Still, the job title is purely semantics; the important point is the amount of money they earn (and this is before all the publicity!)

In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt.

Again, really?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2005.05.003

This paper investigates obesity’s relationship to individuals’ wealth by analyzing data from a large U.S. longitudinal socio-economic survey. The results show a large negative association between BMI and White female’s net worth, a smaller negative association for Black women and White males and no relationship for Black males.

And BTW, $250K isn't rich, nowhere near in fact.

Finally.. really?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Median household income, 2007 $50,740

$250,000 is a lot greater than $50,740. Thus, compared to the rest of the population, the Palins are wealthy.

It's normally better to use evidence to back up your position, rather than making throw away comments that are laughably fallacious!

 

[math_04]

Another possibility is that some scandal is about to break, or would have broken had she stayed in office.

Yes, that is what I also thought at first. But then again, it might have just been the stress of the job and the inability to wade through tough political battles. I have noticed that she, on many occasions, runs away from a tough battle, plays the blame game numerous times, despite having a possibly faked external aura of self confidence and brashness. It is almost as if she was thrust too fast into the political scene, felt deeply intimidated by the national political stage and combined with her possible lack of confidence and knowledge, gave up and fell into a big hole. Thankfully,this all means that a run for president in 2012 probably will not happen.

 

[LowlyPion]

Translation: You have no ability to refute.

Don't be silly. Maybe save that kind of talk for a basketball court or a school yard? The real translation is as expressed, ... I have little interest in parsing your screeds.

 

[LowlyPion]

That's what I thought at first. Another possibility is that some scandal is about to break, or would have broken had she stayed in office.

I'd be surprised if there was much scandal about to break, unless it was scandal not discovered that would have occurred before her selection by McCain. It would be so unbelievably Blagoivich, if she would have engaged in anything untoward, in the full glare of the attention that has surrounded her since the election.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Really?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...askans/?page=3

I think the term "engineer" is a little misleading though, as Todd Palin does not have a college degree. He has worked for about eighteen years on oil slopes. I know he was going to move into a position of management in the company but because of his wife's new job as Governor (at the time), he avoided taking the job to avoid a conflict of interest.

But I do not think he is an engineer in terms of the way this website would regard it. He was/is more a form of a supervisor at most.

It seems like he was an engineer, but took a demotion when Palin became governor. Still, the job title is purely semantics; the important point is the amount of money they earn (and this is before all the publicity!)

True.

Again, really?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2005.05.003

Yes really, that's what one would think. I didn't say that's what it is. Obesity tends to be more prevalant in the poorer from what I have seen personally, because they are lazier and do not take care of themselves. One could always mention the "working poor" who are not lazy, but these people generally rise out of poverty within time, unless they make very poor decisions.

Otherwise, from a strict time point-of-view, it's the person working the 60+ hour job sitting on their butt who should be fatter, not the person working the 9 to 5.

Obesity otherwise is mostly a result of laziness and bad appetite on the part of Americans.

Finally.. really?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

$250,000 is a lot greater than $50,740. Thus, compared to the rest of the population, the Palins are wealthy.

No they are not. They are simply, when salaries are combined, among the highest-paid. That doesn't make them wealthy by any means. In some areas of the country, $250K is standard middle-class living. Try living in Manhattan and see how far $250K takes you.

Think of it this way. Who are the richest 5% of people on Earth? All 300 million Americans.

Whether you make $20K or $200K or $2 million a year or whatever as an American, you are among the richest 5% of the global population.

But we can see that there are some huge disparities still within that 5%! As you said, a person making $250K is still making a lot more than someone making say $50K.

But $250K just puts one into around the highest-earning 5% of the American population I believe, and within that 5%, there are also huge disparities.

"Wealthy" is an arbitrary term, but on average, it means net worth around at least $5 million to $10 million and income of maybe around at least $500K a year. That kind of money just barely breaks the mark of where someone can be considered "rich" or "wealthy."

"The wealthy" are those earning in the millions each year with millions of dollars in net worth. Earning $250K a year is small potatoes and nowhere near wealthy. You aren't in the poorhouse on a combined income of $250K but you are nowhere near wealthy on that either.

$250K is just the upper-echelon of the middle-class.

Yes, that is what I also thought at first. But then again, it might have just been the stress of the job and the inability to wade through tough political battles. I have noticed that she, on many occasions, runs away from a tough battle, plays the blame game numerous times, despite having a possibly faked external aura of self confidence and brashness.

What "tough battles" has she "run away" from (aside from her resignation as governor)? When does she "play the blame game?"

 

[Count Iblis]

There seems to be about 20% to 30% of Americans who are very conservative and who don't like to be part of a more moderate Republican Party. Palin could be a suitable person to lead such a Conservative Party.

 

[cristo]

No they are not. They are simply, when salaries are combined, among the highest-paid. That doesn't make them wealthy by any means.

You must just have some weird politician definition of wealth!

In some areas of the country, $250K is standard middle-class living. Try living in Manhattan and see how far $250K takes you.

I live in London, the second most expensive city to live in in the world (note that New York is 15th). I earn nothing like $250k, however still manage to live quite easily. You are, once again, making up comments that have no relation to the truth!

Think of it this way. Who are the richest 5% of people on Earth? All 300 million Americans.

Are you living in some sort of naive bizarro-world? There countries other than the United States in the world, you know... all the other billions of people in the world are not living in poverty!

Whether you make $20K or $200K or $2 million a year or whatever as an American, you are among the richest 5% of the global population.

Sorry, but this is even more laughable than all the other nonsense you've been stating. Do you have your own America-only internet, and lack of international news, or do you just choose to be so ignorant?

"Wealthy" is an arbitrary term, but on average, it means net worth around at least $5 million to $10 million and income of maybe around at least $500K a year. That kind of money just barely breaks the mark of where someone can be considered "rich" or "wealthy."

Whatever; I'm bored of you and your semantics now.

It seems to me that you are sat with a huge silver spoon in your mouth which has been there since birth, in your castle in a place where a wage of $250k is not classed as wealthy. I hope you wave to the people in the slums when you fly in your helicopter over them.

 

[WheelsRCool]

You must just have some weird politician definition of wealth!

Wealthy is when you can pretty much afford to live the "high-life" comfortably. $250K won't do it, not by a long shot.

I live in London, the second most expensive city to live in in the world (note that New York is 15th). I earn nothing like $250k, however still manage to live quite easily. You are, once again, making up comments that have no relation to the truth!

What part (although not that I am familiar with London's areas, aside from Kensington)? Because $250K in a place like Manhattan isn't going to get you very far. In Brooklyn perhaps, or Queens, but not Manhattan.

Are you living in some sort of naive bizarro-world? There countries other than the United States in the world, you know... all the other billions of people in the world are not living in poverty!

The United States is the richest 5% of the global population. Haven't you ever heard the complaints from the Left that the U.S. are 5% of the world population yet use 25% of the resources (they forget how much wealth America produces).

Now yes, on a PER CAPITA basis, America isn't the wealthiest...Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and so forth, are richer. But as an overall segment of the global population and country, America is the richest.

Europe and the Westernized Asian countries still make up relatively small portions of the global population.

Most of the world population lives in poverty, or what we in our richer countries would define as poverty. Even the so-called "rich" European nations have economies that by the American standard, suck, along with taxes and gas prices Americans would scream bloody murder about.

Sorry, but this is even more laughable than all the other nonsense you've been stating. Do you have your own America-only internet, and lack of international news, or do you just choose to be so ignorant?

What is "America-centric" about saying America is the richest 5%? We are 300 million people out of a six billion global population (that's 5%), with a $12 to $13 TRILLION economy. Our largest corporations are bigger money-wise than most Third World economies.

WE ARE THE WEALTHIEST 5% ON THE PLANET. We put more money into our military than most other countries COMBINED and it still is "only" about 3% to 5% of our GDP.

Our currency is the gold standard of the world (right now anyway, it seems this might change eventually due to our current tanking economy and if our new President and Congress spends us into oblivion).

There is nothing "American-centric" about this.

Whatever; I'm bored of you and your semantics now.

It seems to me that you are sat with a huge silver spoon in your mouth which has been there since birth, in your castle in a place where a wage of $250k is not classed as wealthy. I hope you wave to the people in the slums when you fly in your helicopter over them.

$250K is not wealthy. It's just upper-earning middle-class.

As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly. If that was the case, all celebrities would instantly be fit and none would have weight problems as many do.

AMERICA AS A NATION would be a nation of ultra-fit people! Instead we're a nation of fatties (and then we complain about high healthcare costs).

Palin's making $250K combined isn't what makes her and her husband fit, it's that she gets up and runs each day and he works on pipelines, races snow machines, and so forth, you know, EXERCISE. She in particular, you don't have five children and maintain a good build at 45 years of age as a woman unless you exercise all the time (and eat healthy I'm sure as well).

There are plenty of hardworking people who work long hours in an office who are highly-paid, but are overweight and out-of-shape who would say, "You want me to EXERCISE!? YOU TRY WORKING 60+ HOURS EACH WEEK AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH FAMILY AND BILLS AND THEN FIND TIME TO EXERCISE!"

Poor, rich, whatever, the only way to be fit is to eat healthy and exercise properly.

And no I was not born with any silver spoon in my mouth, I know what poverty is, up until recently I was in a trailer with lack of heat in the winter time, windows so lousy I had to put plastic on them with duct tape, holes in the floor, constant fear of waterpipes freezing in the winter, a toilet not even screwed onto the floor, half the electrical wiring in the place fried, I could go on.

 

[BobG]

I doubt she's on the losing side of a split within the Republican Party.
...

The fact that all three tried to tap into the religious fundamentalist core just emphasizes which side is on the winning side in the Republican Party split.

There's another off year Congressional election to get through, and you might see what really matters in elections - the economy. If we're still in a recession, Democrats will get hammered and religious conservatives will take it as evidence that they can succeed without any moderates.

Come 2012, we'll see which side was on the winning side of the Republican split. If Romney runs as the pre-2008 Romney and Huckabee emphasizes his record in Arkansas instead of running as an ex-preacher, then the economic conservatives (Romney) or moderates (Huckabee) will have won. If all three candidates run as religious conservatives again, then I think you can conclude the Republican Party is on its way to third party status - in that case, Palin will be as good as any other candidate likely to win the Republican nomination.

You keep ignoring the results of the election.

My comment was directed towards which side wins the battle within the Republican Party, not that a party of social conservatives would win the national battle for the electorate in the long term.

An extreme right Republican Party is a mixed bag. Constantly being hammered in Congress would drive the party out of existence.

If the Republican Party can maintain a significant representation in Congress (at least 41 Senators, for example - they can't run 40 or less for many cycles), they'll win a Presidential election, eventually. If we're still stuck in an economic recession in 2012, Nixon could beat Obama (and Nixon's dead). Being a minority party limits the effectiveness of a President, but not overwhelmingly so unless the opposite party has such a large majority that it can override vetos at will. It at least affords a decent chance of getting a conservative Supreme Court justice, for example.

I don't think it's really a winning proposition for a political party since Republicans are clearly flirting with the possibility of irrelevance, but it's still an interesting idea. If you're a social conservative, it provides a better chance of victory than diluting your position before the nomination even takes place. Economic conservatives and moderates might be pretty irate at how the Bush Presidency turned out, but two or three decades of Alito and Roberts have to be pretty encouraging to some conservatives if they have visions of Roe v Wade being overturned, affirmative action ending, etc.

The same could be said of the extreme in either political party. As frustrating as the 1992 election and 2000 election may have been (to Republicans in the first and Democrats in the second), being willing to throw an election to the opposing party is a very powerful tactic to make sure the extreme factions aren't ignored in future nomination battles. Different tactic, but same principal.

In fact, I think driving moderates (RINOs) out of the Republican Party has worked out a lot better for social conservatives than third party defections historically have. Sometimes, the best you can achieve is short term success, so go for the gusto and get as much out of it as you can, when you can.

 

[cristo]

The United States is the richest 5% of the global population.

Perhaps we should start defining our words, since you seem to have a nonstandard dictionary. I use the term "richer" in the sense that person A is richer than person B if (and only if) the sum of person A's property and cash is greater than that of person B. Thus, by my (somewhat standard) definition of the word, a person whose net property is $(n+1) is richer than a person whose net property is $n.

However, using bizarro definitions that you seem intent on using, a person who lives in Germany, say, with property worth €100,000,000 is not as rich as a person who lives in the US with property worth $10. That, my friend, is utterly nonsensical.

Even the so-called "rich" European nations have economies that by the American standard, suck, along with taxes and gas prices Americans would scream bloody murder about.

LOL! That's your opinion, I suppose (though it seems quite clear you've never actually traveled outside your country). However, what if I wanted to judge whether a country "sucked" or not on, say, the availability of free healthcare...

What is "America-centric" about saying America is the richest 5%?

Saying that the US has the richest economy in the world is completely different to saying that individually Americans are the wealthiest people in the world.

WE ARE THE WEALTHIEST 5% ON THE PLANET.

Maybe you should start using some references instead of just trying to shout to win an argument.

As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly.

Did I say that, or did I instead counter your comment that "In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt."

Did I counter you comment by simply speculating like you do? Oh no, wait a minute, I used a published, peer-reviewed article to support my argument. Have you got any support for your arguments?

...I could go on.

Sure, go for it, it would be about as strong as the rest of your anecdotal points.


Oh, and by the way, stop putting words in my mouth. Comments like "As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly" are completely misrepresenting what I have actually said. I could make up lies about you if I really wanted, but I doubt I could do as well as you're doing to yourself!

 

[WheelsRCool]

Perhaps we should start defining our words, since you seem to have a nonstandard dictionary. I use the term "richer" in the sense that person A is richer than person B if (and only if) the sum of person A's property and cash is greater than that of person B. Thus, by my (somewhat standard) definition of the word, a person whose net property is $(n+1) is richer than a person whose net property is $n.

However, using bizarro definitions that you seem intent on using, a person who lives in Germany, say, with property worth €100,000,000 is not as rich as a person who lives in the US with property worth $10. That, my friend, is utterly nonsensical.

Where on Earth do you get the impression I am saying this? I'm talking about as a POPULATION, the U.S. is the richest 5%. Of course each country has people who are what we define as rich.

LOL! That's your opinion, I suppose (though it seems quite clear you've never actually traveled outside your country). However, what if I wanted to judge whether a country "sucked" or not on, say, the availability of free healthcare...

First of all, I never said any of the European countries "sucked," I said that by the American definition, their economies suck, which they do.

Unless you want to pretend stagnant economic growth rates, chronically high unemployment, laws and regulations that completely hamstring entrepreneurship, very high national debts, and so forth, equate somehow to a good economy.

And BTW, European healthcare isn't free. It's paid for by the citizens, because so much of their wages are garnished and through ultra-high gasoline taxes so that everyone has to drive a very small car or one with a diesel engine.

The European social service systems are going to find themselves in trouble soon as so many of their elderly begin retiring while too few people are going to be paying into the system and there isn't enough economic growth or job creation.

Saying that the US has the richest economy in the world is completely different to saying that individually Americans are the wealthiest people in the world.

I never said Americans are individually the wealthiest. On an overall per capita basis, they're among the richest however. But there are nations with higher per capitas incomes as well. As a population, they are the richest.

Maybe you should start using some references instead of just trying to shout to win an argument.

I'm not shouting to win the argument, just using capitals to emphasize a point that is very obvious. It's simple math. 5% of world population with richest economy and among the highest per capita incomes, you can pretty much safely say Americans are the richest 5%.

Did I say that, or did I instead counter your comment that "In fact, one would think obesity would be more prevalent in those who earn at least $250K because those are your worker-bees who lack the time to workout, and also white-collar jobs tend to be more sitting on one's butt."

You said:

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

Her and Todd making $250K does not automatically equate to fitness.

Did I counter you comment by simply speculating like you do? Oh no, wait a minute, I used a published, peer-reviewed article to support my argument. Have you got any support for your arguments?

I do not need any peer-reviewed articles for this argument. Wealth does not lead to fitness. If anyone peer-reviewed article says that, it was written by idiots. You might find that the TREND among higher-earners is to be thinner, while the TREND among the lower-earners is to be fatter, but money doesn't equate to fitness unto itself. Fitness is very simple: physical exercise and eating healthy.

Oh, and by the way, stop putting words in my mouth. Comments like "As for semantics, you're the one who claims that "wealth" automatically equals fitness, which is silly" are completely misrepresenting what I have actually said. I could make up lies about you if I really wanted, but I doubt I could do as well as you're doing to yourself!

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

So because they earn a combined salary of $250K, this automatically means they are both fit...?

 

[cristo]

Where on Earth do you get the impression I am saying this? I'm talking about as a POPULATION, the U.S. is the richest 5%.

That's fine: if you're saying that the US has the biggest economy in the world, then there's no argument!



[/quote] so that everyone has to drive a very small car or one with a diesel engine. [/quote]

It's probably better for everyone if we use less fuel!

I never said Americans are individually the wealthiest.

I'm not shouting to win the argument, just using capitals to emphasize a point that is very obvious. It's simple math. 5% of world population with richest economy and among the highest per capita incomes, you can pretty much safely say Americans are the richest 5%.

Firstly, your two sentences contradict one another. Secondly if you insist on using "math," then you should realize that phrases like "among" and "can pretty much safely say" are not strict mathematical term, and so have no meaning. Thus, your "simple math" is just bogus statistics.

"But Palin is also wealthy: obesity is prevalent in people who take home close to the average wage, not a family whose breadwinners are a governor and an engineer with a combined salary of around $250,000!"

Her and Todd making $250K does not automatically equate to fitness.

Are we going to have to dig out the dictionary again? Prevalent, means widespread, or most common. Thus, I said obesity is most common in lower earning families. I did not say that money "equates to fitness." My point was merely that keeping in shape, when taking home a high income, is not an impressive feat. I then cited a reference to support the fact that high income is negatively correlated with obesity.

I do not need any peer-reviewed articles for this argument. Wealth does not lead to fitness. If anyone peer-reviewed article says that, it was written by idiots. You might find that the TREND among higher-earners is to be thinner, while the TREND among the lower-earners is to be fatter, but money doesn't equate to fitness unto itself.

You don't understand an argument with simple scientific support, do you? That's very bizarre for someone on a physics forum!

 

[WheelsRCool]

It's probably better for everyone if we use less fuel!

Sure, but not for people to be forced to because bureaucrats "feel" the people should.

Firstly, your two sentences contradict one another. Secondly if you insist on using "math," then you should realize that phrases like "among" and "can pretty much safely say" are not strict mathematical term, and so have no meaning. Thus, your "simple math" is just bogus statistics.

Americans have among the highest per capita incomes in the world. I didn't say they have THE highest. As for the "can pretty much safely say," okay then one can flat-out say Americans are the richest 5%.

Are we going to have to dig out the dictionary again? Prevalent, means widespread, or most common. Thus, I said obesity is most common in lower earning families. I did not say that money "equates to fitness." My point was merely that keeping in shape, when taking home a high income, is not an impressive feat.

Alot of people would highly disagree with that assertion. Keeping in shape under any income is an impressive feat, because it takes hard work.

High incomes usually require hard work. People do not earn high incomes via "luck" the way the left like to imply, it takes working your tale off for the most part. And that takes up a lot of time. Being able to fit in a workout on a busy schedule can be tough.

You don't understand an argument with simple scientific support, do you? That's very bizarre for someone on a physics forum!

If the argument is that obesity is more prevalent in lower-earning families, that I understand perfectly.

If the argument is that "taking home a high income makes keeping in shape far easier," that is very arbitrary because it depends.

 

[Proton Soup]

guys, fuel is money. the more you burn, the more you earn. that's why the US has the world's largest economy. and that's one of the reasons the rest of the world wants us to use less energy. sure, we can improve profit margins and production by doing things more efficiently... but economic growth still requires energy. and if we start shrinking our energy use, we also start shrinking our economy, whilst growing the economies of others.

 

[cristo]

As for the "can pretty much safely say," okay then one can flat-out say Americans are the richest 5%.

Ok, then 'one' would be flat-out incorrect.


Anyway, this discussion is over, since it now has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Incorrect. The American population are the wealthiest 5% in the world. On a per capita basis, countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Cayman Islands, etc...are wealthier. But as a country, America is the wealthiest and it is 5% of the global population.

 

[Cyrus]

Incorrect. The American population are the wealthiest 5% in the world. On a per capita basis, countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Cayman Islands, etc...are wealthier. But as a country, America is the wealthiest and it is 5% of the global population.

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

 

[WheelsRCool]

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

Nothing. It was something we were/are debating however. It sprang off of our Sarah Palin debate.

 

[Cyrus]

whatever floats your boat.

 

[LowlyPion]

Time's analysis of the 5 reasons she may have quit.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html

Looks to me like they all stack up to a "Show me the money." move on her part.

It's less clear how astute a politician she is. One has to wonder about her piquish refusal to appoint an acceptable Democrat as required by law for the Alaska legislator that went into the Obama administration. That kind of narcissism doesn't seem like smart politics.

Maybe the real reason she left was that she found herself increasingly unqualified to handle the job of Governor, as problems mounted for which she has no solutions? Better to quit and let people think she could solve problems, than remain and prove that she couldn't?

 

[BobG]

Time's analysis of the 5 reasons she may have quit.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html

Looks to me like they all stack up to a "Show me the money." move on her part.

It's less clear how astute a politician she is. One has to wonder about her piquish refusal to appoint an acceptable Democrat as required by law for the Alaska legislator that went into the Obama administration. That kind of narcissism doesn't seem like smart politics.

Maybe the real reason she left was that she found herself increasingly unqualified to handle the job of Governor, as problems mounted for which she has no solutions? Better to quit and let people think she could solve problems, than remain and prove that she couldn't?

I have to admit that the balance between spending up to a million dollars of her own money to defend herself from allegations from outside groups vs the chance to earn money on a speaking tour would make the last reason seem pretty reasonable. That's a strange quirk in Alaska's laws.

I would agree that becoming the VP nominee has brought nothing but trouble for her. I think she was qualified to be governor of Alaska, but being the poster child for the conservative wing of the Republican Party has destroyed the Democratic base she had in Alaska.

I think she definitely wasn't (and isn't) ready for prime time, but Time magazine's mention of the 2006 version of Palin does lend some credence to Palin's claims that the McCain campaign mismanaged her by making her the poster child of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

But what else is new? Romney's campaign jumped through so many hoops to appeal the right that no one could figure out who he was by time the primaries took place. Even McCain took a lot of hits among long time backers by catering to the right. The only reason Palin and Huckabee didn't look more two-faced is because they had so little exposure before their campaign took place.

 

[LowlyPion]

That's a strange quirk in Alaska's laws.

I agree that it seems a bit onerous. It occurs to me as being about as contrived as NCAA rules concerning what head coaches are permitted in terms of recruitment. Anyone in Alaska with a view to political ambition seems to be somewhat more hamstrung than one imagines elsewhere. (Heck in some states you can just take off and see a mistress in Argentina for a week.)

I'd say the ethics violations are at once a little unfair, but occasioned by less than careful behavior on both Todd and Sarah Palin's parts, and by the blurry line they made for themselves by Todd acting in quasi official ways. Improper e-mailing and campaigning etc is too much niggling about what was actually done, but they should have been smart enough to set up parallel accounts and keep things from becoming a problem in the first place. The vindictive fight with her brother-in-law looks way too petty, yet they got way too involved for someone who would think to be seen as made of Presidential timber.

She just doesn't seem to have a big brush or a grand vision. She can't seem to paint in broad strokes, rather she seems unnecessarily caught up in picayune things. So going for the media/entertainment gold likely fits her view of herself far better than any policy ambitions that she genuinely would want to advance.

 

[Loren Booda]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

 

[LowlyPion]

Politics aside, I am concerned that she may have suffered an anxiety or depressive disorder of some kind - or is she more shrewd than I suspect?

I know she is more shrewd than I think she is.

She would have to be.