Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska governor

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

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 DaemonSeid

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]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.