Originally Posted By WorldDisney Ecdc, That was put to rest awhile ago. The FBI stated there was never any investigation over that issue.
Originally Posted By ecdc That's the last time I trust a respected news organization like...thinkprogress. Don't I feel like a dumbass. My utter dislike of Palin clouded my judgment. What can I say.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney LOl, wouldnt worry about it, its the internet. Also its still being reported as fact by many people even though its been debunked.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney And to be fair to Palin, we havent heard ANYTHING of substance that there is a scandal even brewing. Its all just been speculation (and lets be honest, biased hatred) by people who speculating with her leaving suddenly. I actually hope its not. I really hope she is simply done as some inside sources have claimed and we wont have to see her fill up our tv screens with mindless incoherent chatter like her resignation speech showed. A scandal just means more time we have to hear about it and see her on every tv screen around the world. But if all of this is because she wants to be with her family, write a book, go on the republican speaking circuit to make gobs of money or campaign for others, then great, go do that and good for her. Just dont and try to be in a position to set national policy, thats all I care about. Anyway, the bible thumper wont be missed by many if she is leaving politics behind.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure why all the anger gets place on Palin when it was McCain and his team that put her in the national spotlight to begin with. Ok, say you are a politician and you are asked by the potential next President to be his/her running mate. You will say, "no thanks"? I don't like Palin and I think she was an anchor to McCain. But, I don't blame her. I blame McCain.
Originally Posted By Mr X I would *definitely* say "no thanks". I'm no where NEAR qualified for that position. Neither was she. Both she AND McCain were horribly irresponsible, but I put more of the blame on him since he at least appears to be sane, rational, and intelligent most of the time (she's just...well, we know what she is). Oh, and I think you are confusing "anchor" with "dead weight". She sunk his campaign, no doubt about it. Sure, the crazies came out to play. But for every one of those idiots, there were 4-5 moderates in the background (like Colin Powell) saying "uh...no way!".
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think we can say that we would respond "no thanks". But, that would be like me saying I would refuse the lottery winnings if I hit the numbers because I wasn't good with money and wouldn't be able to handle the pressure. Sure, I might SAY that but if the the lotto guy came knocking on my door I suspect I would get my pen out and sign the check.
Originally Posted By Mr X No, I don't buy your premise. If a lottery guy came, I'd take the money. If I were a one term governor of a small state (and was honest with myself about how very little I knew about world politics), it would be irresponsible in the extreme for me to accept a vice-presidential offering. Unless I was a power hungry idiot, of course.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It was irresponsible for her to be asked in the first place. I don't fault her for saying yes. Can't agree more though, she wasn't qualified.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The FBI denied there's any investigation, though (I suppose there still could be one on a local level).> I'm a bit confused. The HuffPost said it was an IRS investigation, not an FBI one. Did the FBI drop it, and the IRS pick it up?
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "Ok, say you are a politician and you are asked by the potential next President to be his/her running mate. You will say, "no thanks"?" Lots of people say 'no thanks' to being a vice presidential candidate. Happens every four years. Palin should have been one of them. She should have known she was in over her head, and that she was chosen simply for being a base-appealing female. "But, that would be like me saying I would refuse the lottery winnings if I hit the numbers because I wasn't good with money and wouldn't be able to handle the pressure." Have you seen what happens to most lottery winners? They'd be better off turning down the money. But that's a faulty analogy, because one is a prize, the other is a job. A job that requires enormous skill. Here's my analogy: would you box Mike Tyson for $50 million? I can't box, so I would turn down the offer because I know I'd get killed. It would be tempting (a lot of money IS a lot money), but in the end I won't be able to enjoy the money, what with being dead and all. McCain was foolish for picking Palin, yes. But Palin ain't blameless. She needs to take responsibility for saying yes and embarrassing the party further.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Your analogy is good but there wasn't much risk of death for Palin. After the resume header "Governor of Alaksa" there wasn't much hope for the future. Sure, she might have made a run for the Senate but, let's be real. There isn't much chance that anyone from the State of Alaska gets invited on a national ticket...ever. I just think this hatred and animosity toward her is misplaced. No one outside of Juneau or Anchorage knows her name if McCains team doesn't make the screw up of the decade.
Originally Posted By mele I'm not angry at McCain for his pick. He handed Obama his victory. I still heartily dislike Palin because of the things she has said and done which have nothing to do with McCain.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I just think this hatred and animosity toward her is misplaced. >> I'm not sure the hatred and animosity was originally against her personally. Rather, it was the idea that the GOP was putting up another empty puppet figure to be manipulated by corporate interests. Palin was very similar to George W. Bush in that she would have been a figurehead for right-wing "values," being completely manipulated by monied interests like Big Oil, insurance companies, and defense contractors. We didn't need 8 more years of that kind of leadership. That's where the animosity originated. Then, I think you had a group of Democrats who were very insulted at the idea that Palin was being touted as a GOP equivalent to Hillary Clinton -- when the two women and their credentials for holding high office couldn't have been more different.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't know if anyone touted Palin as the GOP equivalent of Hillary Clinton. Most right wing conservatives would have considered that an insult...to Palin. But, I agree with you Sport...the hatred was more for the situation than the person. It is a good thing that only Republicans are beholden to "monied interests".
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It is a good thing that only Republicans are beholden to "monied interests". >> No one escapes the monied interests. I just think that George W. Bush represented the absolute worst scenario as a politician who was a complete empty suit and puppet for corporate america. The outcome of his presidency was very predictable from day one.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It was predictable from Day 1? You were able to predict 9/11 and the economy collapsing? Wow...can you give me the lottery numbers too? I think it is very easy to judge Bush in hindsight (though I'm not sure we really even have enough facts yet to cement his place in history.) No doubt he was unpopular for the last 3 years of his Presidency. Not sure that is the true measurement of his 8 years. If Bush was a "puppet for corporate America" then either he failed THEM miserably too as evidenced by this recession or the folks pulling his strings were more inept than he.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I just think this hatred and animosity toward her is misplaced. No one outside of Juneau or Anchorage knows her name if McCains team doesn't make the screw up of the decade.<< I didn't have animosity towards her until I got to hear more and more about her. I think Sarah Palin represents the absolute worst of this country. I think not only was she imminently unqualified, but that she considered her ignorance a positive thing. And she has a slew of supporters who agree. This isn't some innocent, but unqualified woman who got dragged into the mix. This is a calculating, vindictive woman who thinks her relationship with god makes her the most qualified. She's incredibly dishonest (by now the story of her telling the McCain campaign to lie about her husband's involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party is well known) and she has no problem being incredibly dishonest. She seems to figure if public portrayals of her don't square with the image she has of herself, she has every right to correct them, no matter how inaccurate she is in doing so. (By the way, narcissism is frequently defined as being in love with oneself. That's not quite right: it's being in love with an image of yourself as a grandiose figure. That, my friends, is Sarah Palin through and through.) The David Letterman thing is a PERFECT example of how Sarah Palin operates and is slippery with the truth. She was offended at Letterman's jokes, she took issue with his characterization of her and her family. So she released a statement that said Letterman made a rape joke (he didn't) about her 14 year old daughter (he didn't). And when Letterman clarified, she continued to harp on him, and calling him a pedophile. That kind of immature instability and the kind of erratic behavior we've seen is nothing to admire. I'm shocked more people don't have animosity towards this woman. She's a lousy person, let alone a lousy leader.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not calling here innocent in all of this. I didn't vote for McCain because she was on the ticket. But, people with far greater knowledge and experience put her in this position to begin with...didn't investigate her well enough...didn't decide to take her off the ticket when it was evident she was in way over her head. I blame party leadership far more than I blame her and...honestly...that is a great problem to Republicans. She can disappear but they are still in place making the national decisions.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It was predictable from Day 1? You were able to predict 9/11 and the economy collapsing? Wow...can you give me the lottery numbers too? >> I made a number of predictions in December 2000. I predicted that oil companies would be in control of the economy for the near future, so I invested a chunk of money in oil companies like ExxonMobil. I did this in December 2000. I made quite a bit of money. I also predicted that defense companies would be in control of the government and it was likely that we would be engaged in some sort of conflict. So, I invested in some defense stocks and made some money there, too. 9/11 was not something I think I could have ever foreseen, but I was very disheartened when the war plans against Afghanistan that were drawn up by the Clinton administration in the months after the Cole incident were not executed. There was an article in the Washington Post in November 2000 about how the Clinton administration was holding off on its Afghanistan campaign for the election, but expected the new administration to follow through. The new administration ignored it and focused on cutting taxes instead. You can also look through my postings here to see that I was down on the economy long before it was fashionable to acknowledge those things. A lot of folks said I was a pessimist and didn't understand the way the economy works. I think the whole economic collapse was very foreseeable and I withdrew a lot of money from the markets will in advance of the slide. I also predicted last summer that there was no way that any new administration would be able to fix the economy in a 4-year term and that would likely limit either McCain or Obama to single term as president since Americans will probably be in worse shape in 2012 and looking for someone to blame. We'll see what happens there.
