GreekChat.com Forums
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska governor (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=106119)

DaemonSeid 07-07-2009 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1823997)
I don't know that the general populace of GC has a problem with her education now or then, at least in the sense that it was decisive in their evaluation of her an a candidate.
That is my point...it was brought up and immediately brushed aside because it was 'normal' where she was from to do that sort of thing...so to me, it's a big 180 turn that now after the fact it's being discussed in depth.

Not trying to say "I told you so." but moreso that this was an issue that when it really counted no one really brought up.

Again, if the vetting committee was comfortable with it, that was their choice.

VandalSquirrel 07-07-2009 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1823790)
You actually have the top part exactly backwards. She vetoed a bill that prohibited giving benefits. She had been advised that the ban was unconstitutional so she vetoed it. It's there in the link you gave if you read it. To me that demonstrates a desire to govern well, rather than with religious bias.

Unless you can find stuff from here Wasilla days, it seems kind of strange to suggest it was important. Even if you can't or don't want to invest the time, list the accusations and I'll look them up. Some people were worried about her banning books, but she never did. She merely asked what the procedure was but never attempted to do it. Personally, that strikes me as okay. If you or your constituents are upset about certain books, having the librarian outline the methods to challenge a book seems fine, especially if you never use it.

As far as religious proclamations, that kind of strikes me as not really being a big deal. I doubt any governor is going to make one unless someone has asked him or her to do so. If we had evidence that she was requested to and then she didn't, there'd be something to talk about, but to say, well she made these meaningless proclamations for these faiths but not these others that she was never requested to make? Not a big deal to me.
I forgot this link, http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=34&type=1 where she speaks out as being against the benefits. This was the one I meant to post. The bill she vetoed supports her position on the constitutional amendment of 1998 (mentioned in the link above). She vetoed bill 4001 because she was told by the Department of Law it was unconstitutional, even though she doesn't believe the benefits should exist, due to the 1998 amendment. Without the link I just provided, the second one didn't make as much sense, and I apologize for that. Either way it is an Alaskan Supreme Court issue, not hers.

I don't understand why one has to be asked to do a Proclamation for a particular group. I'd like to see a politician be inclusive and not have to be asked to acknowledge other groups, faiths, or cultures. Why not take the initiative and just do it? There were Proclamations done yearly for various themes and topics, it isn't good PR to not be inclusive (or what would I have to comment on now).

Unfortunately the Wasilla City Code is "current" and I can't find anything from the past online, and I am sure I'd have to research it at Wasilla City Hall, and well, that isn't going to happen. There are mentions in various newspapers but the government documents are either not online or I'm not searching right. If you read through the information on the Governor site there's a lot of her folksy manner of speaking (and writing) and though it may not bother you, all the God Bless stuff is something I don't want in my politics, even with the best of intentions. And so you don't think I'm picking on her, it really bothers me the Idaho Legislature opens with a prayer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1823953)
I think it's one of those eye of the beholder things. If you think she's an anti-intellectual flake, it appears to be evidence to support that. If you don't particularly care about politicians' academic credentials, and you found her basically normal, this seems basically normal.

I think four colleges in five year is a lot too, but if you look at the kind of schools they were, I don't think it matters a lot.

You and Obama went to serious schools that are hard to get into and have a lot of prestige. There's a reason to stick it out even if you aren't super happy. If you're going to geographical state U and you aren't really feeling it, why stay?

Maybe I know an unusual number of college hoppers in terms of former students. It, in my experience, represents a lack of academic purpose almost always but not a character flaw. Some of us go through college because we're kind of interested in stuff and we want a job that requires a college degree, but at the age of 18-23, it's not quite laid out in front of us like stepping stones. I think that's okay.

(I only went to two colleges as an undergraduate. But I might have gone to others had I not liked the second one.)
I am obviously biased since I hold two degrees from the same University that granted her degree, but I changed schools and that doesn't make me a flake. It makes me someone who made a choice due to family circumstances, and I try to be understanding of circumstances. "The kind of schools they were" is just rude to say, though I don't think you really meant it that way. You attended the University in your state (my current state) as did I and many other people. Maybe she decided to go to school at North Idaho College and the University of Idaho because of money, as she had relatives here and residency, or she went to Matanuska Susitna College for the same reason, or had a sick family member. I mean she graduated, what's the big deal if she went to more than one school?

When I think of amazing Alaskan women, Sarah Palin just doesn't compare to the legacies of Grace Berg Schaible, Elizabeth Peratovich, Flora Harper, Fran Ulmer, Beverly Masek, and all the women who helped build, and still build the state. She stepped down, and that's always going to be a mark against her in my book.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1824000)
That is my point...it was brought up and immediately brushed aside because it was 'normal' where she was from to do that sort of thing...so to me, it's a big 180 turn that now after the fact it's being discussed in depth.

Not trying to say "I told you so." but moreso that this was an issue that when it really counted no one really brought up.

Again, if the vetting committee was comfortable with it, that was their choice.
I guess I don't understand your point because I don't think it really counted, ever, and the people who are suggesting that it does reveal something significant didn't really consider her qualified in other respects. As near as I can tell, no one would have changed their votes based on a more timely discussion of this issue.

KSigkid 07-07-2009 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1823995)
I think, based on your postings about politics, that you like a certain amount of wonkiness in your politicians. I would be surprised if someone with Palin's education background could deliver what you're looking for.
It's part of the whole package for me, a factor, though not the only factor. This past election is actually a perfect example of that - Pres. Obama had the more impressive academic record, but there was no chance I would have voted for him. The rest of the package (platform, etc.) outweighed his academic credentials in my mind, so I voted for McCain instead.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel (Post 1824003)
I forgot this link, http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=34&type=1 where she speaks out as being against the benefits. This was the one I meant to post. The bill she vetoed supports her position on the constitutional amendment of 1998 (mentioned in the link above). She vetoed bill 4001 because she was told by the Department of Law it was unconstitutional, even though she doesn't believe the benefits should exist, due to the 1998 amendment. Without the link I just provided, the second one didn't make as much sense, and I apologize for that. Either way it is an Alaskan Supreme Court issue, not hers.

I don't understand why one has to be asked to do a Proclamation for a particular group. I'd like to see a politician be inclusive and not have to be asked to acknowledge other groups, faiths, or cultures. Why not take the initiative and just do it? There were Proclamations done yearly for various themes and topics, it isn't good PR to not be inclusive (or what would I have to comment on now).

Unfortunately the Wasilla City Code is "current" and I can't find anything from the past online, and I am sure I'd have to research it at Wasilla City Hall, and well, that isn't going to happen. There are mentions in various newspapers but the government documents are either not online or I'm not searching right. If you read through the information on the Governor site there's a lot of her folksy manner of speaking (and writing) and though it may not bother you, all the God Bless stuff is something I don't want in my politics, even with the best of intentions. And so you don't think I'm picking on her, it really bothers me the Idaho Legislature opens with a prayer.



I am obviously biased since I hold two degrees from the same University that granted her degree, but I changed schools and that doesn't make me a flake. It makes me someone who made a choice due to family circumstances, and I try to be understanding of circumstances. "The kind of schools they were" is just rude to say, though I don't think you really meant it that way. You attended the University in your state (my current state) as did I and many other people. Maybe she decided to go to school at North Idaho College and the University of Idaho because of money, as she had relatives here and residency, or she went to Matanuska Susitna College for the same reason, or had a sick family member. I mean she graduated, what's the big deal if she went to more than one school?

When I think of amazing Alaskan women, Sarah Palin just doesn't compare to the legacies of Grace Berg Schaible, Elizabeth Peratovich, Flora Harper, Fran Ulmer, Beverly Masek, and all the women who helped build, and still build the state. She stepped down, and that's always going to be a mark against her in my book.
Okay, in the first same-sex benefits issue, she personally opposed the benefits but she vetoed a law that prohibited them because she had been advised it was unconstitutional, before the court ruled on it and after it passed the legislature. The case shows that she supports the rule of law over her personal religious beliefs, right? Why isn't that regarded as significant?

With the Wasilla stuff, I was just asking you to name the issues that bothered you, and I'd do the research. What I've found is that sometimes people have impressions of how she governed that aren't accurate in fact.

It's fine if you'd like less religious speech in public life, and you can dislike her for hers. But in my opinion, saying "God bless you" doesn't bring about theocracy. Opening prayers are neither here nor there for me as long as they are open to every religion to give it a whirl. Personally, I'd find it more sincere for them to all pray privately, but it doesn't wind me up as a public symbol as much as other forms of empty rhetoric, but to each her own.

In the second instance, I completely agree that I went to a school of the same quality that Sarah Palin graduated from. I'm satisfied with it for her and for me. I was wondering if her school pattern of attendance mattered more from the perspective of people who had elite educations, and I think I may have downplayed the level of her institutions too much. I apologize if it seems that I was slighting your school.

I didn't mean to hold her out as a model of Alaskan womanhood earlier if it seemed like I did. I just found it unlikely that you were going to find a lot of personally meddling legislation in the background of any successful Alaskan politician.

DaemonSeid 07-07-2009 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1824005)
I guess I don't understand your point because I don't think it really counted, ever, and the people who are suggesting that it does reveal something significant didn't really consider her qualified in other respects. As near as I can tell, no one would have changed their votes based on a more timely discussion of this issue.
But you got the point right there...at the time it was brought up, it didn't count nor mattered because, and this is my supposition, since she was being picked for such a high position, her education wasn't that big a deal and apparently had already had met muster, so why question it?

Everything else had mattered, not her school hopping.

Funny thing is, we are discussing academic credentials and we are so far and away of pinning down the cause of her abrupt resigning from office.

It's all good, maybe this line of convo will help make some sense of what's going on in Palin's head.

honeychile 07-07-2009 09:57 PM
honeychile's thoughts (since they seem important?)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefish81 (Post 1823974)
Then, there's this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PRN20081105

I didn't doubt SNL, The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, etc. could have influence some people, but I'm saddened by how lazy and uneducated people have let themselves become. Especially when information is so easily available.
Welcome to American Politics. It absolutely shocks me how many people can't even tell you who their own basic representatives are, let alone those in another state.

FWIW, I wasn't thrilled about the naming of Sarah Palin as the VP contender, but kept quiet about it (certain GC people can vouch for that). The spoofs on her - which entirely too many people believed as truth, not spoofs - just made a bad situation worse. Frankly, the older man/younger MILF combination was a little creepy. Yet, while I will respect the Office of the President and Vice President, I'm still not convinced that the men currently holding these offices are the best that the United States has to offer.

I'm an American, and I want the very best for America. Nobody can convince me that the four people who represented the two major parties were the best this country has to offer. [/soapbox]

Now to the topic at hand:
I have a feeling that Sarah Palin may be pregnant. Has anyone noticed the clothing she's worn for "interviews" this weekend? The overalls, the waders, the loose dress - I wouldn't be at all surprised. I'm more surprised by the nasty remarks still made about her. http://ui31.gamespot.com/1214/deadhorsebeat_2.gif

KSigkid 07-07-2009 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1824015)
I'm an American, and I want the very best for America. Nobody can convince me that the four people who represented the two major parties were the best this country has to offer. [/soapbox]
That's all very dramatic and all that, but you're far from the only person on this board who felt that way (myself included). I think that was very much a topic of conversation on the board, and the only people who seemed thrilled by the results of the primaries were Pres. Obama's supporters.

VandalSquirrel 07-07-2009 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1824015)

Now to the topic at hand:
I have a feeling that Sarah Palin may be pregnant. Has anyone noticed the clothing she's worn for "interviews" this weekend? The overalls, the waders, the loose dress - I wouldn't be at all surprised. I'm more surprised by the nasty remarks still made about her. http://ui31.gamespot.com/1214/deadhorsebeat_2.gif
Let's just say that any of those items aren't that ridiculous to be wearing. I wish you could see the "fashion" I wore last summer in Alaska. All three of those items I wore, for various reasons. I did my best to not be a complete disaster though.

ETA: Umm she was fishing in a remote area, why wouldn't she be wearing waders while fishing? That's what people do Fourth of July weekend, they go fishing. She'd be criticized for wearing something else, so this is lose/lose.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1823999)
It may be strange but, unfortunately, it's the truth. It's happened more than once. I do suspect that it will calm down as I get older, but will never go away (for those other two pesky reasons). Come on, you really think they're concerned with what classes I took in college? They look for reasons to get rid of me. When the resume is irontight, they have nothing else to complain about.
Does the information that you provide include the classes that you took? Really? I wonder if that's a field based thing. I've only seen degrees, employment history, courses taught, papers published, kind of stuff on CVs. I've never seen a transcript kind of thing. Is the listing of courses common in your field?

It's odd that it seems like they want to get rid of you, rather than they want to see what you've done. Or is that already in your presentation and they're asking for even more substantiation when they ask for the CV?

The race/ethnicity and gender stuff may never completely go away, but at least as you built a professional reputation, who you are will be understood in advance by more and more people that you work with.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1824015)
FWIW, I wasn't thrilled about the naming of Sarah Palin as the VP contender, but kept quiet about it (certain GC people can vouch for that). The spoofs on her - which entirely too many people believed as truth, not spoofs - just made a bad situation worse. Frankly, the older man/younger MILF combination was a little creepy. Yet, while I will respect the Office of the President and Vice President, I'm still not convinced that the men currently holding these offices are the best that the United States has to offer.

I'm an American, and I want the very best for America. Nobody can convince me that the four people who represented the two major parties were the best this country has to offer. [/soapbox]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1824020)
That's all very dramatic and all that, but you're far from the only person on this board who felt that way (myself included). I think that was very much a topic of conversation on the board, and the only people who seemed thrilled by the results of the primaries were Pres. Obama's supporters.
But I think that's why the treatment of Palin matters, beyond debating to what degree we think she brought it on herself or deserved it.

What normal person of the kind of quality that we want to see would risk subjecting himself or herself to that?

How do we enjoy the freedom of speech and the press that we're accustomed to in the expansive way that the internet made possible and still have standards of decency in political discourse that would allow good people to enter the field?

ETA: I know there was no golden age of politeness in American politics, but I think there was a time when people still had private lives and could escape from the punishment of constant criticism.

Munchkin03 07-07-2009 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1824022)
Does the information that you provide include the classes that you took? Really? I wonder if that's a field based thing. I've only seen degrees, employment history, courses taught, papers published, kind of stuff on CVs. I've never seen a transcript kind of thing. Is the listing of courses common in your field?

It's odd that it seems like they want to get rid of you, rather than they want to see what you've done. Or is that already in your presentation and they're asking for even more substantiation when they ask for the CV?

The race/ethnicity and gender stuff may never completely go away, but at least as you built a professional reputation, who you are will be understood in advance by more and more people that you work with.
I don't list classes on my resume; I've had the same job for a few years now so other than my undergrad/grad school, I don't even list much about my educational background.

Basically, they're looking for an excuse. The same clients don't ask for the resumes of my male counterparts. If people are acting like this over their architects, you don't think they're being as cautious about their presidential candidates?

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1824026)
I don't list classes on my resume; I've had the same job for a few years now so other than my undergrad/grad school, I don't even list much about my educational background.

Basically, they're looking for an excuse. The same clients don't ask for the resumes of my male counterparts. If people are acting like this over their architects, you don't think they're being as cautious about their presidential candidates?
No, I don't think it's caution in politics. But it may be an excuse to back up a decision that you've already made in both cases.


It's a faulty analogy though on a lot of levels. You have a whole range of choice in architects and if it's an individual building, you have complete control over the process of choosing if you have enough money. With presidential candidates, it's selection by committee and election by the country at large to accomplish a task that no one has defined in advance.

DaemonSeid 07-07-2009 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1824037)
No, I don't think it's caution in politics. But it may be an excuse to back up a decision that you've already made in both cases.


It's a faulty analogy though on a lot of levels. You have a whole range of choice in architects and if it's an individual building, you have complete control over the process of choosing if you have enough money. With presidential candidates, it's selection by committee and election by the country at large to accomplish a task that no one has defined in advance.
which again leads to what i was saying before, if there was a question about her academic credentials, then the onus was on the vetting committee.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1824045)
which again leads to what i was saying before, if there was a question about her academic credentials, then the onus was on the vetting committee.
I disagree. I do not think that the vetting committee needed to disqualify her because she went to four colleges in five years and then graduated.

And that's really all that they could do. They didn't have a Sarah Palin who graduated from one elite university in four years to sub in. They only could have eliminated her as a choice and could have gone with one of the other candidates that people discussed as possibilities last summer, who would have brought a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

bluefish81 07-07-2009 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1823980)
Maybe I'm missing something. What do you all think that attending four colleges says that lackluster performance at one mediocre college doesn't?

Or is it that you basically feel that you feel that an elite education is needed to be a good VP?

Or maybe that you feel like educational experience is a good proxy for intelligence? I think it's much more likely to be a proxy for your parents' social class, assuming that you went to a lame college or four.
No, I'm don't think an elite education is necessary to be a VP or President. I just think it'd be nice to finish one thing when you start it. Like your term as govenor, unless something is preventing you from doing so. I realize that she eventually got her undergrad degree. We've had presidents and VPs that didn't attend Ivy league/elite schools. I didn't attend one either. I went to a lame state school.

A few years ago, I had to defend my five year old transcript in order to move into a management level job. I'm not sure at what age you get to escape your past. I know people five to 10 years older who've done the same thing with my company.

preciousjeni 07-07-2009 11:27 PM
I don't have tv service, which may explain why I'm out of the loop, but how are Palin's children being "attacked"?

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefish81 (Post 1824055)
No, I'm don't think an elite education is necessary to be a VP or President. I just think it'd be nice to finish one thing when you start it. Like your term as govenor, unless something is preventing you from doing so. I realize that she eventually got her undergrad degree. We've had presidents and VPs that didn't attend Ivy league/elite schools. I didn't attend one either. I went to a lame state school.

A few years ago, I had to defend my five year old transcript in order to move into a management level job. I'm not sure at what age you get to escape your past. I know people five to 10 years older who've done the same thing with my company.
I agree that she should have finished her term as governor, but the only reason the educational thing is significant to me is if it could have predicted a character trait of not sticking with stuff. And she stuck with going to college and graduated; she just hopped from one institution to another, and I don't know what that means.

I don't know if "escape your past" is how I would describe having actual experience that overcomes a mixed educational background. But if you stay with one company, and they're comparing you to new candidates whose whole resume they review, it wouldn't surprise me for them to ask you questions about the areas that you seemed weaker than the other candidates on. It might even be necessary to go back to school for some positions, but you know that.

UGAalum94 07-07-2009 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by preciousjeni (Post 1824059)
I don't have tv service, which may explain why I'm out of the loop, but how are Palin's children being "attacked"?
Nothing new really, just talking about the same old stuff.

AOII Angel 07-08-2009 05:40 AM
What I love about her resignation is her assertion that she "worked two whole years straight!" Uh...is there some rule that you get a break from your job every two years, cuz I missed that memo! Guess I'm getting a vacation!!!!

texas*princess 07-08-2009 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1823958)
Actually, people have said how or why it was significant:





Then, there's this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PRN20081105

Any basis you have for your assertion that it wasn't significant? Or could we at least admit that it's an arguable point?
Thanks for finally answering my question on how it was so significant.

Your quote of
Quote:
A significant number of American pollgoers actually thought Palin said, specifically, "I can see Russia from my house" . . . no matter what you want to think about the education, intelligence or common sense of the American public.
doesn't say how it was so significant... just that a lot of people actually thought she said that bit about Russia which is why I kept asking.

You probably won't agree, but I would argue that 6 percent (of the 1000 voters in the survey) who said the skits were a factor in their decision-making to vote for Obama is not very significant at all.

But that's just my opinion :)

texas*princess 07-08-2009 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1824102)
What I love about her resignation is her assertion that she "worked two whole years straight!" Uh...is there some rule that you get a break from your job every two years, cuz I missed that memo! Guess I'm getting a vacation!!!!
That's awesome! haha

KSig RC 07-08-2009 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas*princess (Post 1824185)
doesn't say how it was so significant... just that a lot of people actually thought she said that bit about Russia which is why I kept asking.

You probably won't agree, but I would argue that 6 percent (of the 1000 voters in the survey) who said the skits were a factor in their decision-making to vote for Obama is not very significant at all.

But that's just my opinion :)
Actually, I said that.

Here's the thing: people are notoriously unreliable judges of their own decision making, so I've basically decided to ignore the 6% figure in light of other evidence. Nobody wants to say "yeah, I made the most important civic decision based upon a comedy routine I watched after a few glasses of wine with my unlovable hedgehog of a wife", right?

It's important because perception is shaped in a massive way by how things are reported, and which things are given the greater weight by the person/entity doing the reporting. SNL focusing on her being a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly means that, for many people, they accepted Palin as a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, so much so that they believed the SNL skit's language was hers, exactly, no matter how stupid.

Did Palin contribute to this herself? Of course. In fact, you might even argue that she was actually a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, and I might not even disagree on a macro level. However, the national discussion did not focus on her ideas for America - it focused on her being a moron, her being hot, her being an attack dog, her having a pregnant daughter. The SNL skit and ensuing media blitz played a role in this. Perception is real.

UGAalum94 07-08-2009 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1824220)
Actually, I said that.

Here's the thing: people are notoriously unreliable judges of their own decision making, so I've basically decided to ignore the 6% figure in light of other evidence. Nobody wants to say "yeah, I made the most important civic decision based upon a comedy routine I watched after a few glasses of wine with my unlovable hedgehog of a wife", right?

It's important because perception is shaped in a massive way by how things are reported, and which things are given the greater weight by the person/entity doing the reporting. SNL focusing on her being a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly means that, for many people, they accepted Palin as a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, so much so that they believed the SNL skit's language was hers, exactly, no matter how stupid.

Did Palin contribute to this herself? Of course. In fact, you might even argue that she was actually a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, and I might not even disagree on a macro level. However, the national discussion did not focus on her ideas for America - it focused on her being a moron, her being hot, her being an attack dog, her having a pregnant daughter. The SNL skit and ensuing media blitz played a role in this. Perception is real.
For some reason the bold sentence is one of the funniest I've read on GreekChat. Is it the use of "macro level" at the end, maybe?

sdeason1 07-09-2009 01:48 PM
she quit in the middle of the game. while a year ago, she was a rising star, I think her star has dimmed as a quiter for her state and the people who voted her in. I would never vote for her now.

DaemonSeid 07-09-2009 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdeason1 (Post 1824529)
she quit in the middle of the game. while a year ago, she was a rising star, I think her star has dimmed as a quiter for her state and the people who voted her in. I would never vote for her now.
Rearlly...what are you smoking?

Please stop.

texas*princess 07-09-2009 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1824220)
It's important because perception is shaped in a massive way by how things are reported, and which things are given the greater weight by the person/entity doing the reporting. SNL focusing on her being a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly means that, for many people, they accepted Palin as a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, so much so that they believed the SNL skit's language was hers, exactly, no matter how stupid.

Did Palin contribute to this herself? Of course. In fact, you might even argue that she was actually a vapid, ignorant soccer mom-cum-hillbilly, and I might not even disagree on a macro level. However, the national discussion did not focus on her ideas for America - it focused on her being a moron, her being hot, her being an attack dog, her having a pregnant daughter. The SNL skit and ensuing media blitz played a role in this. Perception is real.
I think this is my field coming into play, but I'm a root-cause kinda gal.

If Palin hadn't said/done any of those things, she wouldn't have been portrayed as a crazy hillbilly whatever because none of that would have come to light.

She could have been a closet vapid soccer pit bull hillbilly if she wanted to and actually had good ideas out there, but she demonstrated no knowledge whatsoever of what was going on.

All of the rally speeches seemed so written-out and rehearsed and when it came time for people to ask questions and receive answers from her, she had nothing good to say because she didn't know what she was talking about and that scared a lot of people.*

I agree that the media played a part in it, but I don't think it was necessarily their fault that they reported her missteps. There was crap being flung about all the candidates -- Obama was a "musilm" and he had a crazy pastor, Many don't think Hillary should have counted her days as First Lady as "experience", McCain was W2.0... etc etc. but when the news started reporting in Palin, she cried foul and blamed the 'liberal media elite" for attacking her because she's a woman :rolleyes:

Wah wah.

I don't think Palin just "contributed" to it... I think she caused it. If she hadn't done any of that, the media wouldn't have had any reason to portray her like a dumb hillbilly vapid whatever.


* and FWIW, I think all of the rally speeches sounded written/rehersed, but at least the other 3 candidates actually had intelligent things to say when asked questions at random. It just sounded so much more fake with her, because up there it sounded like she might actually know what she was talking about, but get her in an interview or any other scenario, and she didn't have the slightest clue.

DaemonSeid 07-21-2009 09:49 PM
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the board.

Palin posted an entry on Twitter in which she said the "matter is still pending," a statement echoed by her lawyer.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees, and she cited the mounting toll of the ethics probes as one of the reasons she is leaving office.

The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/...hics_complaint

DrPhil 07-21-2009 10:25 PM
Oh she is horrible. :eek:

KSig RC 07-22-2009 11:55 AM
So the problem is the use of the term "official"? I honestly could not care any less about Sarah Palin right now. I sincerely wish others agreed.

ThetaDancer 07-22-2009 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1827867)
I honestly could not care any less about Sarah Palin right now.
Amen!

Dreadloc'd Diva 07-22-2009 02:11 PM
I was watching CNN last night,and I see that Govenor Palin has 500K in legal fees. She's going to be in trouble for a long time. But does this hurt her chances for the presidency in 2012?

PeppyGPhiB 07-22-2009 02:22 PM
I was suprised to hear that Alaska doesn't have legal counsel on staff to protect its officials from complaints and suits. Having worked closely with a state government agency, I can't imagine NOT having assigned legal counsel...government officials and bodies get an unbelievable amount of garbage thrown at them.

Dreadloc'd Diva 07-22-2009 02:23 PM
So,in other words..she's in serious trouble without legal counsel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1827908)
I was suprised to hear that Alaska doesn't have legal counsel on staff to protect its officials from complaints and suits. Having worked closely with a state government agency, I can't imagine NOT having assigned legal counsel...government officials and bodies get an unbelievable amount of garbage thrown at them.

UGAalum94 07-22-2009 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1827867)
So the problem is the use of the term "official"? I honestly could not care any less about Sarah Palin right now. I sincerely wish others agreed.
Yep, apparently in Alaska you can't benefit in any way from your office that a regular citizen couldn't and they take it to lengths that most states don't, apparently from what I was reading last night.

So although everyone paying into that fund was knowingly and voluntarily contributing to it for it to be used exactly as Palin used it, in Alaska, since it was probably people's interest in her as the Gov. that caused them to contribute, it's illegal.

I'm kind of over Palin as well, but it continues to bother me that I think this is being spun as her misappropriating public funds for illegal personal use, rather than a really tight application of Alaskan law. Personally, I'd like to see more public officials collect private, voluntary donations to pay for random crappy expenses they generate, as long as the fund was open, publicly documented and avoided quid pro quo.

UGAalum94 07-22-2009 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1827908)
I was suprised to hear that Alaska doesn't have legal counsel on staff to protect its officials from complaints and suits. Having worked closely with a state government agency, I can't imagine NOT having assigned legal counsel...government officials and bodies get an unbelievable amount of garbage thrown at them.
Right, so she probably only faced these charges because she was governor, but she's barred from raising funds as governor to pay them off. It seems kind of crappy, and I think the investigator actually recommend the legislature use public funds to pay off the debt.

Dreadloc'd Diva 07-22-2009 02:36 PM
But when a politician gets into some kind of trouble...there is always some kind of cover-up or conspiracy. What's wrong with the truth these days?

UGAalum94 07-22-2009 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadloc'd Diva (Post 1827920)
But when a politician gets into some kind of trouble...there is always some kind of cover-up or conspiracy. What's wrong with the truth these days?
What cover up or conspiracy do you see here with Palin?

Munchkin03 07-22-2009 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadloc'd Diva (Post 1827900)
I was watching CNN last night,and I see that Govenor Palin has 500K in legal fees. She's going to be in trouble for a long time. But does this hurt her chances for the presidency in 2012?
I know it's not exactly the same, but I know that the Clintons pushed on with their legal battles, even though they couldn't afford to pay the fees back in 1998, because they would make more than enough in the book and speaking circuits after he was out of office. Although Sarah Palin wouldn't make nearly as much as HRC and Bill can as writers and speakers, perhaps she figured that the inevitable book deal and limited speaking engagements could pay for the lawyers?

Dreadloc'd Diva 07-22-2009 04:39 PM
Wait until she's officially out of office....whomever is still in her camp will say anything to prove she's innocent of the charges against her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1827921)
What cover up or conspiracy do you see here with Palin?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 PM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.