Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska governor

[KSigkid]

Texas*princess - I still don't see where anyone (except for the possible exception of Honeychile) is saying that the SNL skit was the "deciding factor," or the only factor. You're stressing a point that just isn't being made by people in this thread. In fact, I think most people in this thread are attributing Palin's issues, for the most part, to her own verbal gaffes, errors in strategy, and other self-created issues.

ETA: I still can't believe she's done such an effective job of sinking her political career. If anyone advised her to do this, they should be fired on the spot. I'm not complaining though, if it gets her out of the 2010 picture.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Texas*princess - I still don't see where anyone (except for the possible exception of Honeychile) is saying that the SNL skit was the "deciding factor," or the only factor. You're stressing a point that just isn't being made by people in this thread. In fact, I think most people in this thread are attributing Palin's issues, for the most part, to her own verbal gaffes, errors in strategy, and other self-created issues.

ETA: I still can't believe she's done such an effective job of sinking her political career. If anyone advised her to do this, they should be fired on the spot. I'm not complaining though, if it gets her out of the 2010 picture.

Well, you keep saying that the SNL skit affected the campaign. How so? is what I'm asking. What impact did it* have?

Why does it matter so much that people actually believed it was Palin who said she could see Russia?

Furthermore, you say the exception possibly being HC. That was the impression I got from her post which is why I responded to it, and then I got 2 pages of arguments that it was significant, but no one has mentioned how or why it was.

*it = that people "remembered" it was Palin who said that

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Well, you keep saying that the SNL skit affected the campaign. How so? is what I'm asking. What impact did it* have?

Why does it matter so much that people actually believed it was Palin who said she could see Russia?

*it = that people "remembering" it was Palin who said that

It's not the skits themselves that was Palin's undoing. The skits themselves magnified the mistakes that she made during the election and it didn't help that the skits (as said earlier) mirrored what she actually said.

Regardless of what the American people believed she may have said out of her mouth word for word, the bottom line is that people saw her make these mistakes that made for lampoon fodder.

Again as others have said, comedians didn't have to look far for material, just to the source.

And remember, sometimes, comedy is a somewhat lighter way of facing the cold hard truth.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

It's not the skits themselves that was Palin's undoing. The skits themselves magnified the mistakes that she made during the election and it didn't help that the skits (as said earlier) mirrored what she actually said.

Regardless of what the American people believed she may have said out of her mouth word for word, the bottom line is that people saw her make these mistakes that made for lampoon fodder.

Again as others have said, comedians didn't have to look far for material, just to the source.

And remember, sometimes, comedy is a somewhat lighter way of facing the cold hard truth.

But there's some choice about what gets made fun of and how and how often. (Suppose the 57 states comment was handled as ruthlessly and repeatedly.) Palin's treatment is kind of hard to compare to anything else in my political life span.

The interviews were bad, but it's hard to see how she deserves the level, amount, and topics of ridicule she continues to draw. I think the pundits who look at gender and class may be onto something, and that may play into the college issue Munchkin and I were talking about.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But there's some choice about what gets made fun of and how and how often. (Suppose the 57 states comment was handled as ruthlessly and repeatedly.) Palin's treatment is kind of hard to compare to anything else in my political life span.

The interviews were bad, but it's hard to see how she deserves the level, amount, and topics of ridicule she continues to draw. I think the pundits who look at gender and class may be onto something, and that may play into the college issue Munchkin and I were talking about.

Were you around for Dan Quayle?

I was... and that's about how bad this was... times 4.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Were you around for Dan Quayle?

I was... and that's about how bad this was... times 4.

I was, but I don't see it as anything like the personal nature of the criticism of Palin. He was hammered for being dumb, but I never once heard critiques of his personal appearance as whatever the masculine equivalent of "slutty" is. He could have his family at appearance and I don't remember them being attacked.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I was, but I don't see it as anything like the personal nature of the criticism of Palin. He was hammered for being dumb, but I never once heard critiques of his personal appearance as whatever the masculine equivalent of "slutty" is. He could have his family at appearance and I don't remember them being attacked.

and being hammered for dumb wasnt enough?

it's really hard to make a point by point comparison of Quayle vs Palin. I think the bottom line is that critics of Palin saw her as ill prepared (you know I said it enough times) and wrong on so many levels to be VP and what she is doing right now by resigning with no solid explanation is enforcing that point.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

ETA: I still can't believe she's done such an effective job of sinking her political career. If anyone advised her to do this, they should be fired on the spot. I'm not complaining though, if it gets her out of the 2010 picture.

I'm still wondering what she's going to do. And this is purely emotional: I hope it's just to retire to private life because that salvages the most of what I liked about her.

I know it's really bizarre to feel any personal investment in her, but as screwed up as the campaign was, I believed her to be a fundamentally competent person. I had little problem with her political record, such as it was.

I don't know that she was ready to be VP or maybe more importantly run for VP, but we've got Biden; we had Quayle; that bar isn't real high.

If she really resigned because she's going to run for President even though she didn't even complete one term as governor or because she imagines she's going to be this important conservative voice, it's hard not to see my assessment of her basic decency and competence as horribly flaw. And it makes me sad to have been so mistaken.

[bluefish81]

Then, there's this:

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

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

If you're talking about someone applying for a job at a regular company, it's a red flag, but maybe not a fatal flaw.

If you're talking about someone running to be one of the 1-2 most powerful people in the country, then I think it's a much bigger problem. Plus, I think there's a huge difference between transferring from your original school and transferring a number of times, no matter the schools involved.

I agree with this statement. I'd care less if she was applying to be my cubicle mate, etc. Running for Veep or president, yep, I want someone who's hit a few less schools. If you can find a previous candidate for VP or president who attended that many colleges (for undergrad), I'd like to know.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

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.



I agree with this statement. I'd care less if she was applying to be my cubicle mate, etc. Running for Veep or president, yep, I want someone who's hit a few less schools. If you can find a previous candidate for VP or president who attended that many colleges (for undergrad), I'd like to know.

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.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

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]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

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.