Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I just don't understand the continued fascination. If you don't care about her...ignore her. I think the Jersey Shore people are idiots." Of course they are, but they aren't political activists. No one is really taking them seriously.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance And they aren't trying to influence the beliefs and actions of the entire country either.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I find this whole notion that we should just "ignore" Palin if we don't like her very strange. This woman was almost Vice President, and if reports can be believed, is angling to run for the presidency in the 2012 election. Is it really a responsible thing for a citizen to do to just "ignore" someone who might be running for the highest office in the land?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I agree. Especially when she's using any medium she can get her hands on to further her popularity and gain supporters.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance So, I think it's a very good thing, and worth cheering about when one of those mediums is taken away from her, especially if it's because the show isn't popular.
Originally Posted By hopemax From what I read, the cancellation was strictly ratings based. It annoyed me that the Learning Channel was behind the show, just because that implies some actually, "You are going to get some "real world" knowledge/trivia type stuff." And everything I've heard is that her Alaska woman hunting stuff was mostly an act. Maybe her Dad, and her husband are actually into this stuff, but not her. I would roll my eyes if she had a show on E!, MTV, VH1, you know entertainment/personality channels. But a show on TLC gave her some legitimacy that I don't think she deserved.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think Democrats would want Palin to remain relevant as much as Republicans would want Hillary Clinton to remain relevant. Both women are polarizing and likely would cause more damage to their parties than the good they can do. Palin wasn't "almost President". It wasn't even close. Obama/Biden pretty much trounced McCain/Palin. Ask most Independents or Republicans why they might have crossed over and voted Obama and they'd be as likely to tell you it was because of Palin as it was because of Obama. (Or they just didn't vote at all.) I'd love to see some figures on how Alaska tourism has been impacted since Palin went "rogue"/public. I'd bet it is not insignificant.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think Democrats would want Palin to remain relevant as much as Republicans would want Hillary Clinton to remain relevant. Both women are polarizing and likely would cause more damage to their parties than the good they can do." You just breathlessly compared Palin to Clinton and made them seem equally annoying, and then went on to say that she wasn't almost Vice-President. Wow, you almost had me convinced. Nice trick. How'd you do that?
Originally Posted By mele So, ignore Palin and keep her relevant? Not sure how to do both of those... Ignore Palin, keep her relevant, she gains more power but and now I'm told that I don't deserve to complain about anything she does because I didn't participate in the process or keep myself informed?
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Even Ted Nugent who likes and admires Palin doesn't (currently) support her for president. Even my friends and family who lean farther right than I do (I'm a moderate Republican) have no intention of supporting her politically. She is going to need a lot more main stream Republican support than she is getting to secure the nom and like it or not, although it is starting to change, we are still a 2 party system and she can't possibly win as a 3rd party candidate. She CAN be a spoiler for a legitimate Republican candidate. So as much as responsible Democrats despise her, she is the best thing to happen to the Dems in a long, long time.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, some Republicans might argue that Hillary is as annoying as them as Palin is to Democrats. I think we can all agree neither one of them is "no Tammy Wynette standing by her man." But, realistically, she WASN'T almost Vice President. It wasn't really close. She certainly hurt McCain more than she helped. A candidate with very little experience promising "change" beat out a war hero and long term senator...by pretty significant numbers. Mele...I'm suggesting people ignore her if they don't like her. (IE...don't watch her TV show. Oprah annoys me. I haven't seen an episode of her show since the 80s.) But, I'm also stating I think that is a bad strategy for Democrats. I'm an Ohio State guy. I wanted Michigan to keep Rodriguez because Michigan hasn't been relevant since Rodriguez got there. As far as I was concerned...I'd be happy with the status quo. One of the most significant reasons I abandoned the Republican Party and didn't vote McCain was because he chose Palin as his running mate. If you are an Obama supporter...isn't that pretty good news?
Originally Posted By mele <<she is the best thing to happen to the Dems in a long, long time.>> Wow. Clearly a LOT of people do not feel agree. Look how many were quick to site HER as a part of Saturday's shootings. Like it or not, people feel she is doing a lot of damage just with her current status. What she is doing is NOT the best thing to happen to Dems in a long time; that's a rather callous thing to say in light of the the dialog over the past few days. Like it or not, Palin's a part of this entire mess and will always be tied to it. Speaking as a liberal...she can stop with her "favors".
Originally Posted By mele <<One of the most significant reasons I abandoned the Republican Party and didn't vote McCain was because he chose Palin as his running mate. If you are an Obama supporter...isn't that pretty good news?>> Oh yeah, I feel so much better about things. It's all I can think about when I watch the news is how happy I am about how things turned out.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>Well, some Republicans might argue that Hillary is as annoying as them as Palin is to Democrats. I think we can all agree neither one of them is "no Tammy Wynette standing by her man."<< I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I would think that beyond the base, most Republicans would find Sarah Palin to be an embarrassment.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Mele, do you even bother to read the entirety of peoples posts or attempt to put them in context? Politically speaking, Palin only serves to divide the Republican party, guaranteeing Democrats will continue to hold the top office in this country. Responsible Dems, as I said, despise her, but you can bet the DNC loves that she and the Tea Party are out there splitting the Republican vote. As a registered Republican I wish she would stay off "my side" or better yet go away. My comments here are separate from the events of Saturday and her culpability in those events.
Originally Posted By mele Deb, do *you* bother to read people's posts at all? I mentioned the DIALOG after what happened on Saturday, not the shooting. That does pertain to the discussion at hand and how "good" Palin has been. Not seeing a lot of good for anyone. I don't care which side wins because I'm a person who believes that *how* you win is more important than winning. The harm she's doing is not good no matter which side you're on. I don't believe that a country divided into countless factions can accomplish anything. It's not as if Democrats are united and suddenly Republicans are split and so the Dems take it all. I also don't think the DNC is feeling nearly as gleeful and confident after the last election.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I'm pretty sure the vote in the last presidential election would have been much, much closer possibly even resulting in a McCain victory had his running mate been someone other than Sarah Palin. Do not tell me that didn't benefit the DNC. My belief is the RNC suffers more for her involvement in politics than the DNC. I also think the country as a whole suffers because she remains in the public spot light.
Originally Posted By mele <<My belief is the RNC suffers more for her involvement in politics than the DNC>> And we both agree on this, but, I feel the need to point out that the above statement is quite a bit different than saying that Palin is the best thing to happen to Dems in a long, long time, especially in light of the media frenzy resulting from the shooting.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Politically speaking, she is. I'm sure the RNC leadership dreams of having a liberal Democrat version of her dividing the voting pool. I am not talking about your average voter when I say she is good for Dems. I am talking about politicians. Although there are good people in office of all political stripes, and from what I'm reading Giffords can be counted among them. I am referring to the leadership that doesn't give a rip about We The People, only that their people get elected.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I also think the country as a whole suffers because she remains in the public spot light.<< I agree with this. I don't think she brings anything of value to the national discussion. It's boilerplate right wing rhetoric we've heard a million times before, with a generous dose of authentic frontier gibberish. But she did give us refudiate.
