Being against same sex partnerships is part of her religious belief system, and she vetoed those benefits for state employees within a month of taking office in December 2006. Thankfully the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled that denying these benefits was unconstitutional. 1998 was when people voted for an amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman, so she claims she was upholding the AK constitution by vetoing it, but the bill predated her taking office as governor. It passed through the Legislature, and was only applicable to state employees.

Like many people, I have yet to see any reason against same sex partnerships and benefits that isn't backed by religion.

http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-16645.html

There are also much smaller things from her Wasilla days, but those are harder to dig out with official government documents.

ETA: I also found this http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1500&type=6 and I searched through that site and found no mentions of anything comparable for other faiths, though I did find a Proclamation about the 50th anniversary of the Beth Sholom Congregation in Anchorage. Not mentioning other faiths in two and a half years, but proclaiming Tai Chi and Qigong Day is poor judgment and not inclusive. May is Jewish Heritage Month (Jewish Heritage Week falls in May), October is Islamic History Month, but they cannot be found in her proclamations, and I think that won't help her, or anyone, not look Christian centered.

I'm just so tired of people blaming others for their own failures.

No, Palin didn't say "I can see Alaska from my house" but that's not the only reason so many people thought she acted ridiculous. The few interviews she gave did NOT go well and every single one of them got her bad publicity. She said a bunch of ridiculous things that didn't even make any coherent sense that really hurt her own credibility.

SNL (or the "Liberal Media Elite") didn't have to do that. She did that on her own.

If she really thinks living near Alaska gives her foreign policy experience, more power to her, but a lot of people would disagree.

Then why did you specifically mention the poll results as they pertain to those on the "right?"

That's not what anyone is saying. At most, Honeychile was saying that the tone of the campaign may have been different. People (outside of Palin) talk about it as a factor, not "the" dispositive factor.

I agree that Palin's own actions and words have caused the most damage to her political career, but I also think you're mischaracterizing the statements in this thread.

Just so I'm clear, when y'all are saying Alaska, you're really meaning "Russia" right? :confused:

So Palin has said she doesn't need titles in order to help and effectuate change. So I dont expect to hear that she's running for President since she "doesn't need titles." :rolleyes:

I'm glad she resigned. I am still puzzled as to why she was elected governor in the first place.

And the conservatives were supposed to be about Christianity and promoting abstinence. So I don't see the problem. Someone needed to put it out there because it showed that something just wasn't quite right in the Palin home.

I'm guessing she will not become a community organizer . . .

Because the story I read about that several months ago said "right". Sorry you took offense to that


The tone of the campaign wouldn't have been different. Every 4 years SNL mocks the candidates. The same happened last year - all of the candidates were impersonated - not just Palin. So I don't really get the "awww poor Palin! If it wasn't for SNL, she'd be in the White House or things would be different for her!" sentiment.

The difference between the Palin impersonations & the others though, it that Palin said more ridiculous things IRL and gave SNL more material to go off of. If you don't want to be repeatedly mocked, don't make a fool of yourself on the campaign trail of a highly publicized election. It really is that simple.

And for what it's worth, it's not even just her really bad interviews that hurt her politically - there was just too much out there - all those ethics allegations, some of the legislation she got through Alaska, her obvious lack of experience about her that some people just didn't like and/or agree with. Blame the media or whoever you want (since someone other than Palin must be blamed!), but voters should know everything they possibly can about someone before going out there and voting.

And yes, SydneyK, I meant Russia... my bad.

Well, I guess it never hurts to get in a shot against the other side, right?


Again, I think you're overstating things, at least for the purposes of this thread. No one here is saying that Palin would have been VP if the SNL stuff didn't happen, or if the (perceived) media issues weren't there. They are just saying it was a factor.

That's not really all that extreme of a concept - people have been talking about the effect of the media on campaigns for years, back to the Grover Cleveland illegitimate child scandal in the late 19th century, and before that. So, for people to claim that media coverage had an effect on the campaign isn't surprising, or all that unique.

Then forget the whole part about the Colbert Report. I was just saying that there was a story about right-wing ppl who really thought he was being serious. And that it was silly to think a parody was actually true.

If it bothers you that much I'll edit that part out.
Sheesh.

I don't believe SNL was really a factor - which is what HC was implying. If you think the American public actually took that Palin interview parody into consideration when they were standing at the polls, then more power to you.

Even if they did, SNL wasn't that far off base from her real life interviews anyway.

HC said,
The "whole tone" wouldn't have been different. If the SNL skits never happened, the media STILL would have covered Palin's missteps in her interviews. Palin still would have looked like a big nerd for not knowing her stuff and not answering questions in a coherent way.

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.

This morning, I got to hear one of the NPR correspondents discuss the resignation with two of Palin's biggest supporters--the founder of her PAC and someone else. You know, there were a lot of people on the far right who didn't know, or refused to believe, that Obama wasn't a Muslim; I was disappointed, however, to hear the NPR correspondent insist that Ms. Palin had dropped out of college (yeah, her revolving-doors college career is creepy, but she did finish), among other things related to her ethics violations. A far left weirdo spouting this stuff is one thing, a nationally-aired, government-sponsored radio show host is another.

We have crazies and inconsistencies on both sides, people.

Exactly, and it's endlessly interesting to me how many people refuse to understand this point.

My hangup about it is that I don't think the traditional media handles the crazies the same way.

But that may end up changing as traditional print and network media fall apart.

ETA: I don't find Palin's college career "creepy," and I don't think I would even if she were a liberal from a comparable era. I'm not trying to make a lot of your word choice, Munchkin, but I think it's kind of interesting that it seems worth talking about to some pundits.

I understood your point which is why I edited the post :rolleyes: