We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Gov. Sarah Palin Resigns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, saw this story when it first broke Thursday. My only guess is she's getting ready to campaign for "bigger and better" offices in 2012 - but why step down ahead of time like this?
 
I wondered that Osa...but, can you win a bigger and better office when you quit your last one?

I understand she's sick of the media, but why do it now? Maybe you should just stop being mouthy to the media and fly under the radar.
 
julie_m said:
I wondered that Osa...but, can you win a bigger and better office when you quit your last one?

I understand she's sick of the media, but why do it now? Maybe you should just stop being mouthy to the media and fly under the radar.
Click to expand...

It has been hard for her to fly below the radar when people are making knocked-up jokes about her 14 year old kids on the Late Show. The timing does seem a bit odd though.
 
I was listening to NPR news yesterday and one of the news people were saying she was possibly stepping because she may seek the presidency in 2012. I guess I have one question if she is stepping down because of the media heat now just wait until she runs for the presidency. The media along with late night talk shows are going to have a field day with her.

I think family should be off limits and that Letterman and the news media have taken things way to far when they started to go after her family. I know that when you run for a political office that you are putting your life under the microscope but again there should be some restraint on the media and these late night talk shows on going after the family.

With the Internet and instant news we all want more and are able to get more be it the truth or not. You go back to the era of past Presidents such as Truman, Roosevelt, Kennedy Eisenhower etc. family and even certain personnel family matters were off limits. I can't say that was good or bad all I'm saying is we have gotten into such an information overload that the more we get the more we crave.
 
You can't have it both ways. Family is fair game if you put them out front and center in an election. Especially when your politics involve morality mandates that your own family doesn't follow.

(Besides, the Letterman joke was funny.)
 
The republican party is in shambles right now. She is one of the few in her party who could have a presidential ticket run in 2016, and maybe looking to that future scenario. Stay out of the political lime light for a few years, then see where she stands. 2012 is a lock for the democrats if Obama does some of the things he promised, we don't get attacked again, and the economy recovers, even just a little. Plus, a lot of new republican blood will be available in 2014. It don't matter much to me, since I am an independent with the belief that politicians should not be allowed to be president. :comp:
 
Harry Longshanks said:
You can't have it both ways. Family is fair game if you put them out front and center in an election. Especially when your politics involve morality mandates that your own family doesn't follow.

(Besides, the Letterman joke was funny.)
Click to expand...

But this is the double standard...family for politicians should be off limits since it is for the dems. Just ask yourself this question honestly....if that kind of joke was made about one of the Obama girls would everyone think it was funny? That is a retorical question, no need for a political debate here, but we all know the answer. The Palin girls were not "front-and-center", they were just with her and the media made them "front-and-center".
 
If President Obama's unmarried teenage daughter had gotten knocked up just before the election after years of him campaigning on a platform of legislated morality including abstinence instead of sex education and pregnancy prevention . . . then yes, I would have thought the joke was hilarious.
 
We have tried to debate politics on this board and it always ends up badly. (This has not by the way). We will keep this one open for the time being, but lets make sure it stays clean and the arguing to a minimum. Thanks guys.
 
Can we all at least agree that this woman CLEARLY doesn't have what it takes?

In the words of Jerry Seinfeld ...

"And you want to be my latex salsman ..." (or in her case, my President)

8ec25a52b2_ltpPalinWink100308.jpg
 
Last edited:
She has more experience to be our president then our current president does. It just shows that the presidental election has turned into a HS presidential election, popularity. North Korea is literally threatening nuclear attack on the US EVERY DAY, yet we elect a man to office with 0 executive experience...which will be OK as long as he has smart advisors and actually listens to them.

And Harry, you may have thought it would be funny at the Obama daughters given a similar situation, but 99% of the public/liberal media would not have.

I just do not get the idea similar to what Grogger said...why is Obama any more quailfied then her? No leadership, no legislation to speak of, already not following promises, record job losses continue..........were is our "change"....aside from Korea pointing Nucs in our direction?
 
Mmm, I'm going to have to disagree with that, WWPSD. I think a lot of people who are very intelligent weighed both options - and all four people - carefully, and made their decisions without the high school mentality. And there are also people who cast their votes for very dumb reasons - and you find those people on both sides.
 
I understand your point, but am of a very different opinion. Obama won, no arguement at all, even though he did not get 50% of the vote (Bush did get >50% in 2004, something that had not been done since Reagan in 1984), but Obama did win the election. My big issue is that the mentality that you called HS landed other victories across the nation....let me give a great example:

NC Gov. race.......NC has traditionally been a Dem. Gov. and Rep. in pres electoral votes. In the 2008 race Bev Perdue won by 3% over Pat McCory, the closest that a republican has come in a long time here. Research was done and found that if the straight-ticket vote was removed that McCory would have been a victor by >10%, in a Dem state. This state is tired of horrible high personal income tax (I claim 0 and still owe the state $ at the end of the year), but Purdue won becuase of people voting for Obama who did not "carefully weigh" their cantidates at all.

Straight-ticket should be removed for this reason. The Dem won too many races by riding Obama's populatiry and not becuase they deserved to win. Kay Hagen winning a senate seat over Libby Dole...really? That is the only problem that I have with the last election........not counting the fact that the Dems literally stole the win with Al Franken, see this great Wall Street Journal article for that story, but that is a different story but a good read from a non-biased WSJ:

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/wall-street-journal-how-al-franken-stole-the-election/
 
I still think that trend is not new to this year, and this election. When G. W. Bush and the Republican party was its most popular, many Norm Colemans and Tim Pawlentys and Sarah Palins won their bids. Now, if people don't like the jobs that the Democrats are doing, you might see the pendulum swing the other way. I'm sure you know, even Norm Coleman won his first political office as a Democrat in the 90s, and lost the Governorship to an Independent before winning the Senate seat as a Republican.

As for the article about the Minnesota election going to federal courts...I can't advocate state representation being decided at a federal level. I know a lot of Minnesotans well who felt that would trample their constitutional state rights. Minnesotans aren't a dumb bunch - I'm sure they weighed the case carefully, and Franken was determined winner by (at least) three separate entities.
 
julie_m said:
I still think that trend is not new to this year, and this election. When G. W. Bush and the Republican party was its most popular, many Norm Colemans and Tim Pawlentys and Sarah Palins won their bids. Now, if people don't like the jobs that the Democrats are doing, you might see the pendulum swing the other way. I'm sure you know, even Norm Coleman won his first political office as a Democrat in the 90s, and lost the Governorship to an Independent before winning the Senate seat as a Republican.

As for the article about the Minnesota election going to federal courts...I can't advocate state representation being decided at a federal level. I know a lot of Minnesotans well who felt that would trample their constitutional state rights. Minnesotans aren't a dumb bunch - I'm sure they weighed the case carefully, and Franken was determined winner by (at least) three separate entities.
Click to expand...

He was decided a winner, but the problem was that the dems were able to prevent a uniform recount and were able to swing it they way they needed to. Hey, more power to them for getting it done, clearly they had deeper pockets to get the job done, but it is sad becuase Frankin is a nut-job who does not deserve to be in the Senate...he rode Obama and $ to the stealing of an election.

Sorry for sounding so scorned here Julie, you have good point and I am a little upset because of Gov. whom rode Obama into a seat that she did not deserve is about to make NC second to only Cali in taxes...by raising sales tax and increasing the tax on household and businesses making over $200,000 a year. You standard punishment of successful people and businesses to pay to other problem. Nothing like being punished for being successful:clown:
 
Just wait WWPSD. There is talk that it will soon be $150,000 not $200,000 and that will basically put the small business away for good.
 
It sucks when government uses the "wealthy" and businesses to pay for their short-falls. That really just hurts us in the long run becuase the "wealthy" and busineses create our jobs. Why is that so difficult to see?
 
This is going to get locked tight soon. But before it does, and getting back to the original point, it seems to me there must be something more than a run for president in the future that's causing Palin to step down. Like a pending indictment? Or more bad press on some other skeleton? Who knows, but the other explanation -- she wants to stay away from politics to save herself for more politics? -- doesn't make senes to me.
 
It happens all the time....John Edwards comes to mind here as well. Many Dems would have labeled him the next dem cantidate 4 years ago. He spent years prepping for a run before his peep got him into trouble.
 
Palin is a very strange woman, so its not surprising. If she does indeed make a run for the presidency in 2012, the fact that she resigned in the middle of her turn is going to hurt her.
Considering the fact that pretty much the entire GOP thought she was a joke during the '08 election; this definetly isnt going to help her.
The really sad part though is that as much of a nutcase as she is, Palin actually has a decent shot of winning the republican nomination because her competitors are just as much of a joke.
 
are we sure that wasn't Tina Fey puilling a fast one on us?
 
Bakemono said:
Considering the fact that pretty much the entire GOP thought she was a joke during the '08 election; this definetly isnt going to help her.
Click to expand...

Sure it was just them? :wink:

thanks1974 said:
are we sure that wasn't Tina Fey puilling a fast one on us?
Click to expand...

Worst part of McCain losing, no more Fey/Palin!
 
Some interesting news recently. The FBI and officials have said that there are no investigations into potential problems with Palin. The other interesting part that the news showed was that she was a continually fighting 'ethics' battles, 15 to be exact, and 13 have already been won. These legal issues have cost the state $2 million to date, so maybe it was best for her to step down. Perhaps she just got too big for the state.
 
If nothing else she could have a heck of a career in the movies:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top