Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska governor

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

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.