"As a new president takes office and begins to lead our country, Gov. Palin believes that every one of us has a duty and responsibility in this time of economic crisis and international challenge. Each one of us must step up to the plate, get involved in the spirit of renaissance and renewal that is critical to America's success."
And her first step in towards America's successful renaissance?
Sarah Palin for President in 2012
I kid you not...
westseattledood
Member Profile
That just made me urp a little.
*I* kid you not...
Zenguy
Member Profile
I am with you dood. Unfortunately, the constitution does not say anything about being qualified or sane.
cruiser
Member Profile
Jaysus,
There's a big f*** of a hole the size of Alaska where the midwest used to be! Annie get ure gun trig,trak,flip,flop and the eskimos are a comin':)
villagegreen
Member Profile
cruiser, your posts are funny as sh*t.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
-- George W. Bush, Gridiron Club Dinner March 2001
I need help understanding something, and this is an open invitation. Actualy, it's more of a challenge:
Compose a concise list of the reasons you personally find Sarah Palin revolting as a politician, person, or American.
I'll start...
1) Politician: Taking more credit for the negotiation of gas pipeline contracts with Canada and Big Oil than she appears to have deserved.
2) Politician: Her speaking style, and her inability to come up with a new speech for days after her convention speech.
3) Person: For lacking the backbone to speak her mind during the campaign, and instead (as I believe) let her character, opinions, and ideas be diluted by McCain's handlers.
Let's all engage in some critical thinking and see what we come up with!
WSMom
Member Profile
The always amusing/annoying Hamilton Farm's sign on I-5 in Centralia says "Hey Alaska, we'll trade you governors". Sorry dude, King County would have to secede from the State of Washington for that to ever happen!
Zenguy
Member Profile
Palin comes across as another politician that thinks they can do whatever they want and that the rules do not apply to them.
Troopergate
Collecting per diem while working from home
Taking her kids on trips at taxpayer expense, etc.
I want a politician that is in it to better the country not their bank balance. And the fact that she has no clue that she is unqualified for the job scares the bajeezus out of me.
hubby says we should send her a donation ;-0
Zenguy: In your opinion, what are the proper qualifications for the job of President?
Mine are: a moderate level of exhibited intelligence, an understanding of Enlightenment thought and political philosophy, the ability to clearly, concisely express their ideas, honesty, integrity...
And I'm right there with you on wanting representatives in it for the good of the country, not the profit.
WSMom: What makes Palin so unworthy in your eyes?
Zenguy
Member Profile
I agree with all of you qualifications Sky. I want the President that understands the workings of the constitution, the right role for the US in world politics and how to bring people together.
Palin couldn't even bring together the Republican party.
sky2625
i have to agree with zenguy...
Palin seems to have done more to divide people than bring them together
she doesn't understand the workings of the constitution.. seems to suffer from a lack of reading comprehension.. and according to the McCain political team she does not take coaching well... in fact, she appears to be adverse to being told what she does not know.
since one person can't be expected to know everything.. even our president... this is not a good thing.
as for her understanding of the right role for the US in world politics ... it is obvious that her comprehension of world politics is confined to the talking points she is issued... and she doesn't seem to have access to a good map... or perhaps she simply does not know how to use one.
When she confuses understanding of and the ability to negotiate with a country with the ability to literally see that country on the distant horizon .. that's not a good thing...
Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to leadership...
she does seem to understand power...
unfortunately what she seems to understand most about power is how to get it and how to abuse power...
again.. not a good thing.
I take it most of you don't like her? I think she makes people nervous for a variety of reasons. Some of those you said might be correct. But I think I will defend her just because no one else has.
First. She did not split the Republican party. It was already split. She actually re-invigorated the McCain ticket until the economy crashed. She hurt her cause with string of terrible interviews. But, she brought the disenfranchised Conservatives back into the party for the election. Conservatives forgive their own unless you raise taxes.
Second. She is rather conservative. She is against abortion, Loves Guns, wants states rights and more individual and property rights. Less Federal Government interference. She could not get elected in Seattle but I'm thinking she played well in Yakima, Ritzville, Tonasket etc.
Third, Ethics and duties. Her troopergate issue was nothing like Rod Blagojevich, She was reprimanded but technically clear. (Kind of a weak response isn't it :)"). She is not a tax cheat (Geithner, Rangel), She has not pardoned terrorists (Holder), She hasn't set someone else's church on fire like hers was. She did not ban books. She hasn't visited 57 states. She didn't go to a church where the Pastor Damn's America. (Sorry but I listen to Rush and Hannity)
Let me get this straight too...Obama was lauded for enlisting Alternative opinions from the radicals and outcasts and say people like Bill Ayers, but Sarah goes to a couple of meetings about breaking from the Federal Governments choke hold on Alaska and she is considered treasonous? She left that group early but Southside Johnny stayed for 20 years. Obama and Palin did not grow up in wealthy families and for him its a plus but she is trashed?
Fourth. She never said she could see Russia from her home. That was made up. Didn't Tina Fey do a great job or what!!!! Seriously, I was howling dontcha know.
ABC's Charlie Gibson's interview had the real question.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
She understands power plenty and you should be wary of her. 70 percent of Alaskans like her too. She used corruption by other Alaskan politicians to her advantage. She fights tough and takes no prisoners. If that is fighting dirty, then OK, but it seems to me Chicago is the home of Windy City politics. I believe you have to be pretty tough to survive in that cities political machine too.
She did have some uninformed statements during interviews. I don't think she was ready for the national stage. Biden was much more ready but they had to keep him from putting his foot in it.
She had executive experience. Obama didn't but Obama is blessed with it seems excellent oratory skills and and an effective organization. Her speech patterns do not compare to his and for the election neither did her organizational skills.
I like Sarah Palin's stances on Conservative Issues. I like Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal too. I would also gladly put up with Rudy Giuliani. Four possible candidates to run in 2012. I forgot Huckabee too.
Since you don't give her brain surgeon status, she just might take the time learn about her shortcomings. Obama ran a great election and deserved to win. She was not ready...but she might be a few years down the road.
One thing I will bet money on is that if she really does want to run for President in 2012, she will be on the straight and narrow. Hooray for her constituents. They should mostly benefit from that.
HunterG
Member Profile
Oh please God, help us!
Bless You HunterG! You made me laugh.
JenV
Member Profile
four years is a loooong time from now. for starters, I sincerely doubt she will be reelected as Gov of AK, which would hurt her (hahahahahahaha) credibility. Sorry. (wipes tears) yeah, her credibility.
HMCRich...
"I don't think she was ready for the national stage."
if she is not ready for the national stage.. what on earth makes you think she is ready for the international stage? The presidency of the United States is an international stage.
yes, i am sure she will be more polished the next time around... but polish won't change her essential failures.
she never should have been on the national stage in the first place... which says more about the republican party's judgment right now than i think people want to admit.
the best thing you have to say about her is that her candidacy 're-invigorated" the McCain ticket .. until the economy crashed.
The economy didn't crash on it's own. it crashed because of a lot of really bad economic decisions that were backed by the republican party... and are still backed by the republican party
it is not enough to get elected .. you have to govern.
I tend to look at outcomes. If the goal of the republican rule we have endured for most of my adult life was to enrich the wealthiest in our nation, privatize educational excellence, undermine science and erode the safeguards of our constitution... they have succeeded admirably.
but they have bankrupted us economically and morally in the process...
reduce government??? no.. it grew every time a republican was in the white house and shrank with democrats. reduce the deficit??? no, it grew with republicans and shrank with democrats.
The republican party just ain't what it used to be... i was once a Goldwater supporter in my misguided youth and still admire the man... and finding someone who can pander to the masses won't rejuvenate the party...
you will have to find someone who actually stands up for it's ideals to do that... and i have hope that your party will do that.
You can tell us all the ways that Sarah Palin isn't as big a dunce or as big a crook or as slimy a politician as someone else.. but that really doesn't speak much to her character. She is still just a pretty face on a not too appealing package ... no matter how you dress her.
cruiser
Member Profile
Villagegreen,
Thank you,I think:) A village green is something else I miss about home:)
"Republicans are people who claim that government doesn't work... then get elected and prove it."
-- Will Rogers
So here we are in a country with more wheat and more corn and more money in the bank, more cotton, more everything in the world—there’s not a product that you can name that we haven't got more of it than any other country ever had on the face of the earth—and yet we’ve got people starving. We'll hold the distinction of being the only nation in the history of the world that ever went to the poor house in an automobile. The potter's fields are lined with granaries full of grain. Now if there ain't something cockeyed in an arrangement like that then this microphone here in front of me is—well, it's a cuspidor, that's all.
These people that you’re asked to aid, why they’re not asking for charity, they are naturally asking for a job, but if you can't give ‘em a job why the next best thing you can do is see that they have food and the necessities of life. You know, there's not a one of us who has anything that these people that are without it now haven't contributed to what we've got. I don't suppose there’s the most unemployed or the hungriest man in America has contributed in one way to the wealth of every millionaire in America. It wasn’t the working class that brought this condition on at all. It was the big boys themselves who thought that this financial drunk we were going through was going to last forever. They over—merged and over—capitalized, and over—everything else. That’s the fix we’re in now.
-- Will Rogers, radio address 1931
Ken..
thanks.. i had forgotten how much i used to enjoy reading Will Rogers...
"financial drunk"
that just about sums it up doesn't it:)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the (Republican) party, and they are sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they cannot and will not compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." — Barry Goldwater
The following is uncredited except where quotes denote Senator Goldwaters words. Archived from usenet in the distant past I think)
While some Americans might find Goldwater's stand against all interaction between religion and politics too sweeping, many would agree with his strong commitment to individual freedom of conscience on issues as diverse as religion in schools, gay rights or abortion. In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. "I look at these religious television shows," he said, "and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million - they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."
But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right's long-term impact on his beloved GOP. "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
But most importantly, Goldwater was deeply concerned about the Religious Right's relentless war on the Constitution and basic American freedoms. In a Sept. 15, 1981 senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell's Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the "New Right" and the "New Conservatism." Responded Goldwater, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength." Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . "By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," { he said,} "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now" { he insisted}. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."
------------------------
Zenguy
Member Profile
I would disagree with you HMC Rich, she drove away women that wanted a "qualified" woman in office. I blame McCain mostly for picking a woman, any woman that would fit the bill of the religous right. The only people she brought into the party are the religous, right wing nut jobs.
What is wrong with Right Wing Nut Jobs Zenguy? Are they like Left Wing Nut Jobs? You are painting quite a broad stroke with your brush. Should I resort to calling you and a few others Socialists or worse because you don't agree with my or her point of view? I will not but its still a free country so YOU CAN.
To answer your thought from my perspective. She drove away people with different philosophical view points and people who thought she was a dunce. Fine. That is their decision. Also, if people are anti-religion, so be it, but why attack a group that does much more good than harm?
Part of me thinks that secular people still feel the need for a "Godlike" person to fill a void. Obama fills that need for a few. People want something to believe in whether it is spiritual or tangible. Whatever floats your boat.
Our society fortunately has been founded to have a seperation of church and state. But the founders were smart enough to understand that you deserve inalienable rights which were given to us by a creator. We cannot legislate everything. We don't want government or religious tyranny (well, I don't but I can't speak for anyone else).
Some hate religion because they don't want to feel guilty. So be it. I know there are religious people who do try to impose their views on others and it is uncomfortable. Many dislike being witnessed to but it is their right in a private forum. I have never liked it myself, but I can tell them "leave me alone". Nobody wants to be forced into a belief. They shouldn't have to be, but everything should be considered and then accepted, discarded or tabled until they make a decision or change their mind. To lump all the Religious Right people as all Nutjobs is as close minded as you accuse them of being.
Oh no JoB. You know better than to just blame this on Republicans. This has roots deeper than one term. Just like Nixon's price controls caused stagflation and it culminated during Carter years and finally went away during the Reagan years, this bit of economic disaster started with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter. It was left up to the institution to evaluate these loans. They had to self police. (Trust a corporation with self regulating? You have got to be kidding me!) It was expanded under the Clinton Administration (with a Republican Congress) and then during W's reign it became a problem and was supported fully by Democrats while the Republicans were not strong enough or had enough will to fix it. (That is the part you can blame them.) Oh yeah, and the past two years with Reid and Pelosi in charge of the Congress, maybe they could have done something too, but NO. In fact do you know of any regulations that have been put in place for this problem. I need to check that out.
All because the government wanted to give people who normally couldn't afford a home, a chance at one before they should have purchased. Some lending institutions had heavy pressure to do that which include the GSE's. The GSE's were not abiding by market forces. Then these suspect loans became securities?
Here is where you can blame the financial institutions for not enough oversight too. The corporations started practicing unsound business practices with the government cheering them on. Do not JUST blame Republicans.
We all watched our 401k's grow and expand. We watched our housing prices balloon and wondered what was going on. We are the ones who elected these people so we need to share part of the blame also.
The best thing to do is elect people who we trust. Obviously for many around Seattle and across various parts of the U.S. Sarah Palin is not the answer. Others would disagree. That is why there is a Primary season and the press to help us decide.
Ken, thanks for the posts. Those were interesting. It is fascinating that within the parties there are major divisions. I know of a few good Reagan quotes that I can post.
Zenguy
Member Profile
Well the question was about bringing people together not sliver groups. Attracting a group that would have voted for you anyway is not a huge accomplishment.
HMCRich..
it's pretty easy to blame the programs put in place for the poor to achieve home ownership while ignoring that more than a half of those sold variable high risk mortgages actually qualified for a fixed mortgage..
it wouldn't have paid the loan broker as well... so they weren't even offered those mortgages...
as for regulation.. Hillary sponsored a bill that would have federally required full disclosure on all mortgages...
they passed one that made it a little more illegal than it already was to defraud... but unfortunately didn't provide the kind of proof of fraud that would have been necessary to enforce those laws.
the housing program was a very good program when it was administered ethically...
the flip this house mentality is what did the housing industry in...
after all.. once the line was removed between private and commercial banking.. mortgages became one more part of a house that could be flipped.. and flipped.. and flipped.. with someone making money every time it changed hands...
isn't a free marker wonderful..
the only problem is that somewhere.. someone has to pay the bill...
guess who got to pay it..
there was no need to pass new legislation to cure the mortgage problem.. it never would have existed if our federal regulators had only enforced the law as it stood...
and for that you can thank the Bush administration.. you know.. their boss.
Good point Zenguy. JoB, you make me happy. Have a great Friday.
To add a another point. I was looking for something to answer Ken's post. I decided to use the author of the Constitution. This is from the University of Virginia and quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
The Moral Sense
"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:257, Papers 12:15
"How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814. ME 14:139
If others want more quotes from Jefferson, go to this website. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm
I would not want a theocracy ever in this country. I would not want a country without religion. I believe we can have separation of church and state but a country without a moral identity will eventually fail.
HMC Rich...
I couldn't find the quote i was looking for...
but it was basically that one of the greatest arguments against Christianity was the behavior of Christians.
you don't need to be religious to be moral...
i happen to be.. but it's not required..
and conversely...
religion by itself does not guarantee morality...
and...how would one go about legislating morality...what's "moral" for you may be "immoral" for your neighbor. Despite what "W" said...it's difficult to pick the "decider"....
and I agree with JoB...religion has nothing to do with morality. Some of the most "immoral" persons I've known called themselves "Christian"... it's a label. It isn't what one calls themselves, it's what one does in their daily life, IMO...
Zenguy
Member Profile
And whose morality do we pick? Who gets to be the majority?
That is for you and everyone to decide for themselves within the context of family, friends, local and national or even world wide values. No human institution is perfect as well as no human is perfect. Aren't we all doing the best we can?
My covenant with my God gave me guidelines to live by. Besides the 10 Commandments, others may have Bhudda, the Golden Rule etc. If an idea is a good idea for the individual and society, why not cherry pick? There will be differences in opinion but the over riding goal is usually for good.
You can see all through history where there was no or a non-morality. Recent history shows us Lenin and Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge come to mind. Those societies failed. The rights that we take for granted were not available to others until the last few centuries.
For my money the rights promoted by Christianity have helped all classes, ethnicities and backgrounds the idea of equality, self worth, and positive values. The other side of that as a Christian I am fallible, I cannot live up to those standards, but I am forgiven and I should keep trying. Also I know there are people who are "christian" who try to shove their morals down peoples throat and I say they are wrong to antagonize.
I am not studied in the other religions or faiths but I am certain there are similar tenets which through time have shown positive results.
With that said all of these groups must be open minded and forgiving, which as time goes on seems quite plausible. And I know when I go over a line I get an upper cut from Karma. Every single time... and My Name Is Earl. I love that show!
HMC Rich...
Our current economic crisis is due to those who at best chose actions they hoped were legal.. but knew were unethical at best...
Where is the morality in those actions or those of the administration who ordered their oversight agencies to turn a blind eye as long as any case could be made for legality?
Who is the moral man.. the one who praises god and skirts the edges of what he hopes is legal behavior or the one who may not worship but chooses the ethical course over the most profitable?
i vote for the guy with a sense of ethics every time...
because he doesn't save his morality for sunday...
it's time we started redefining our terms...
instead of letting one political party highjack them as talking points...
i am very tired of talking points...
I disagree that is solely an administration, or greedy corporations acting unethically. Consumers, lenders, the secondary mortgage market, and the government all acted in their own best short-term self-interest in an economic climate created by guess who: the government, the secondary mortgage market, lenders, and consumers (and of course everyone’s favorite whipping boy, popular culture).
5 years ago, the government’s ethical course of action would have been to shut down the housing boom by raising interest rates, requiring tighter lending practices, regulating mortgage-backed securities, forbidding regular banks from becoming investment banks, capping financial leveraging at 10:1, freezing Fannie and Freddie’s purchase of any additional loans, and raising cap gain taxes to a prohibitive level on investment properties. But no politician dared do this, as it would torpedo an immense engine of wealth creation for a vast number of Americans, artificial though it was.
But this puts too large a burden on the government. Overall, it is our fault, the people, the consumers. Instead of being well-enough educated to look at government policy, economic trends, and history to see disaster looming, we got caught up in the excitement, overextended ourselves, made very risky decisions, and fueled the housing boom with our own purchases and expectations. On this JoB is right: the profitable course was not the ethical one (if the goal of ethics, in this case, is to prevent an economic crisis).
A lot of people made a lot of money, more than smart, steady economic growth allows for. And now we’re paying for it.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog