I found, on of all places, a radical leftist atheist (don't ask-the things I do for truth justice and the American way) website a radical leftist Alaskan defending, or rather exculpating (in his own backhanded way of course) why Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska.
This was in response to another, similarly radical leftist who was attacking Palin for the resignation in a typically snarky, oh so clever way. I can only imagine, since he was no fan of Palin’s, that he defended her resignation to show off how clever he was and his local knowledge.
Whatever the reason he has provided, because it came from the far left, a perfect rebuttal to those who bring up the "quitter" charge so use it gleefully and often !
Here it is, enjoy.
*********************************************************************
So, your answer is that it's better to cut and run and leave your state in the lurch when you're under investigation for doing unethical and borderline illegal activities than to stick around and defend yourself (since you think you have nothing to hide, right?).
#254Posted by: broboxley OT
March 12, 2010 10:00 AM
*********************************************************************
@carlie #253 I am going to assume that you are not from Alaska when you made that statement.
Alaska is a fun place where for merely pennies you can lodge complaint after complaint against a state politician and the state government is obligated to spend a pile investigating the complaints with political malice aforethought as the agency is made up of folks on both sides of the aisle.
After a complaint is made the opposition goes baying for blood. The incumbent lawyers up and attacks back. Lots of misery for any incumbent and Sarah saw a way out and a big payday.
Most of the complaints were sponsored by a Palin hater and neighbor. Most were unfounded but there is no consequences for a complainant in Alaska. That’s why they refile on something else often trivial and the game starts anew.
Odd I know but the winters are long and people get bored.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Conspiracy? Exposing The Left/MSM's Palin Scheme To Split The G.O.P. & Re-elect Obama
The fact of Obama's continuous slide in the poll's and the lame duck presidency that may eventuate after November has, out of seeming nowhere, seen the emergence of a new meme emanating from the MSM/left establishment. This is an attempt to create a split, real or imagined, in Republican ranks which would be the only sure guarantor of Obama's re-election. It is not a "conspiracy" because it is so blatant, and the follow on steps so obvious, that it smacks of amateurish panic. Nevertheless it should be examined and stopped.
A new Harris poll goes to extraordinary lengths to pump up the Tea Party as a viable political party vehicle for Sarah Palin for the 2012 presidential elections. In pursuit of this goal and to give the concept purported credibility they have brought out of a 20 year hiatus the octogenarian founder of the Harris poll Lou Harris himself whose "insights are razor sharp".
After castigating the punditry and political experts who are seemingly obsessed with wrongly showing Obama as facing his "political demise" for getting the big picture wrong, he then proceeds to show all and sundry what they should have been doing i.e. comparing Obama's possibility of re-election vs. the leading opposition candidates.
His poll (which is an online one so suspicious) shows Obama comfortably ahead of Romney and hugely ahead of Palin. But that's not enough for the self described "old codger". Where the establishment (which apparently does not include The Harris Poll) has further gone wrong is not to include a Tea Party candidate in looking to the 2012 presidential election.
This third party ,which he castigates for their "bad behaviour" against "Some Democrats" without advising what that behaviour constituted, nor what percentage of Tea Party supporters engage in this purported activity nor, as Jon Stewart did, contrast the captured on film bad behaviour of Democrats against Tea Partiers, is not a threat to Obama but "a force that could drive as political dagger through the heart of the Republican Party".
Now who does he set out as the presidential candidate for the Tea Party-why Sarah Palin of course.
He must have been taking a nap during her major address to the Tea Party convention where she stated, in the clearest possible terms that the Tea Party supporters should under no circumstances look for a leader, they should not run as a third party and they should work with the Republican Party. She then advised the Republican Party that it is very much in their best interest to work with the Tea Party supporters.
For what it is worth the poll result had Obama at 45%, Romney as the supposed Republican candidate at 24% and Palin the somehow Tea Party candidate at 18% with 13% not sure. The odd thing with this result is that when Obama is set against Romney in a one on one battle the result is Obama 46% and Romney 39% with 15% not sure. Thus the left right split is a 45% to 42% with the Tea Party included.
Following on from this poll analysis Harris does a "Critique of Tea Party supporters" and here we find that racism runs rampant. Apparently the Tea Party sentiment had its foundation in the anti-Washington feeling that preceded the 2008 election, but the nascent Tea Partiers found themselves upset by the fact that they had helped elect a black man (presumably they did not notice his color at the time).
The Tea Party supporters polled are all Palin supporters (Ron Paul or anyone else doesn't get a look in which is absurd) and because over three quarters are negative about Obama "it would be a vast mistake not to conclude that many (how many ?) of the Tea Party supporters are anything but hostile to the notion that a black, no matter how qualified, should ever serve as president"
This is a ridiculous, unsupported statement which he then goes on to find supposed support for from the "stream of racial epithets that emanated from the thousands (how many from the thousands, if this did actually happen?) of Tea Party supporters as they greeted civil rights legend John L. Lewis". He then goes on to make the unbelievable statement that this "seem to confirm that potential Tea Party voters are loaded with anti-black sentiment" Or perhaps it is like the Emanuel Cleaver "spitting" incident which now seems to have never happened?
Harris concludes by showing that the majority of Tea Party supporters come from the South (wink wink) compared to the general population (not by much however 36% to 33%) but then does a complete switch from the negative about them (characterised as "Wingnuts and President Obama" elsewhere in the Harris website) to how well they could do running a candidate for president in 2012.
Apparently the Tea Party is "well set up to succeed" (in what-splitting the Republican vote?) with their possible highly charismatic leader and candidate Sarah Palin. Harris must know this is a phantom candidacy.If that is the case then the whole purpose of this exercise is to promote the concept to cause, in the public's mind, the image of the Republican's as a split, weakened force going forward compared to the stability of the Democrats and salvage Obama's re-election chances. By amazing co-incidence this Palin as third party candidate for 2012 surfaced on CBS a few days later.
CBS's Early Show made the following ridiculous unfounded and purely speculative statement (whilst noting she was campaigning for Republican McCain). "It seems that if Palin ran for President it is increasingly clear that it wouldn’t be for one of the big traditional parties" Increasingly clear to whom and based on what statement she has made recently?
They then brought in an commentator from the increasingly blatantly shrill leftist blog Politico who opined that Palin is trying to distance herself from the "Toxic Republican brand-and who wouldn't?" I would have thought the Democratic brand was the increasingly toxic one at the moment-CBS's own poll has Obama at the lowest yet at 44%. He then went on to describe her as a "Potential Tea Party candidate for 2012".
Harris-CBS-Politico all promoting the Palin as Tea Party candidate for 2012 based on pure invention, speculation and a desperate attempt to right a sinking ship. It is all so sad and obvious and doomed to failure-it would be very interesting to learn where the Early Show's Palin third Party concept originated from. The secondary theme of the Tea Party supporters, and thus Palin by inference as purported leader, as racists is not only despicable but also doomed to failure. Palin, by her marriage is bullet-proof to charges of racism and her visible warmth to the black schoolchildren on her new Real American Stories show was apparent to all.
Update: Former VP Dan Quayle gives due credit to Palin for her outstanding role in recognising the potential of the Tea Party activists and for her reaching out to them.He too argues against the Tea Party as a third party force-being acutely aware of what the Perot third party run cost the G.O.P. in 1992 which result he doesn't want to see repeated in 2012.
A new Harris poll goes to extraordinary lengths to pump up the Tea Party as a viable political party vehicle for Sarah Palin for the 2012 presidential elections. In pursuit of this goal and to give the concept purported credibility they have brought out of a 20 year hiatus the octogenarian founder of the Harris poll Lou Harris himself whose "insights are razor sharp".
After castigating the punditry and political experts who are seemingly obsessed with wrongly showing Obama as facing his "political demise" for getting the big picture wrong, he then proceeds to show all and sundry what they should have been doing i.e. comparing Obama's possibility of re-election vs. the leading opposition candidates.
His poll (which is an online one so suspicious) shows Obama comfortably ahead of Romney and hugely ahead of Palin. But that's not enough for the self described "old codger". Where the establishment (which apparently does not include The Harris Poll) has further gone wrong is not to include a Tea Party candidate in looking to the 2012 presidential election.
This third party ,which he castigates for their "bad behaviour" against "Some Democrats" without advising what that behaviour constituted, nor what percentage of Tea Party supporters engage in this purported activity nor, as Jon Stewart did, contrast the captured on film bad behaviour of Democrats against Tea Partiers, is not a threat to Obama but "a force that could drive as political dagger through the heart of the Republican Party".
Now who does he set out as the presidential candidate for the Tea Party-why Sarah Palin of course.
He must have been taking a nap during her major address to the Tea Party convention where she stated, in the clearest possible terms that the Tea Party supporters should under no circumstances look for a leader, they should not run as a third party and they should work with the Republican Party. She then advised the Republican Party that it is very much in their best interest to work with the Tea Party supporters.
For what it is worth the poll result had Obama at 45%, Romney as the supposed Republican candidate at 24% and Palin the somehow Tea Party candidate at 18% with 13% not sure. The odd thing with this result is that when Obama is set against Romney in a one on one battle the result is Obama 46% and Romney 39% with 15% not sure. Thus the left right split is a 45% to 42% with the Tea Party included.
Following on from this poll analysis Harris does a "Critique of Tea Party supporters" and here we find that racism runs rampant. Apparently the Tea Party sentiment had its foundation in the anti-Washington feeling that preceded the 2008 election, but the nascent Tea Partiers found themselves upset by the fact that they had helped elect a black man (presumably they did not notice his color at the time).
The Tea Party supporters polled are all Palin supporters (Ron Paul or anyone else doesn't get a look in which is absurd) and because over three quarters are negative about Obama "it would be a vast mistake not to conclude that many (how many ?) of the Tea Party supporters are anything but hostile to the notion that a black, no matter how qualified, should ever serve as president"
This is a ridiculous, unsupported statement which he then goes on to find supposed support for from the "stream of racial epithets that emanated from the thousands (how many from the thousands, if this did actually happen?) of Tea Party supporters as they greeted civil rights legend John L. Lewis". He then goes on to make the unbelievable statement that this "seem to confirm that potential Tea Party voters are loaded with anti-black sentiment" Or perhaps it is like the Emanuel Cleaver "spitting" incident which now seems to have never happened?
Harris concludes by showing that the majority of Tea Party supporters come from the South (wink wink) compared to the general population (not by much however 36% to 33%) but then does a complete switch from the negative about them (characterised as "Wingnuts and President Obama" elsewhere in the Harris website) to how well they could do running a candidate for president in 2012.
Apparently the Tea Party is "well set up to succeed" (in what-splitting the Republican vote?) with their possible highly charismatic leader and candidate Sarah Palin. Harris must know this is a phantom candidacy.If that is the case then the whole purpose of this exercise is to promote the concept to cause, in the public's mind, the image of the Republican's as a split, weakened force going forward compared to the stability of the Democrats and salvage Obama's re-election chances. By amazing co-incidence this Palin as third party candidate for 2012 surfaced on CBS a few days later.
CBS's Early Show made the following ridiculous unfounded and purely speculative statement (whilst noting she was campaigning for Republican McCain). "It seems that if Palin ran for President it is increasingly clear that it wouldn’t be for one of the big traditional parties" Increasingly clear to whom and based on what statement she has made recently?
They then brought in an commentator from the increasingly blatantly shrill leftist blog Politico who opined that Palin is trying to distance herself from the "Toxic Republican brand-and who wouldn't?" I would have thought the Democratic brand was the increasingly toxic one at the moment-CBS's own poll has Obama at the lowest yet at 44%. He then went on to describe her as a "Potential Tea Party candidate for 2012".
Harris-CBS-Politico all promoting the Palin as Tea Party candidate for 2012 based on pure invention, speculation and a desperate attempt to right a sinking ship. It is all so sad and obvious and doomed to failure-it would be very interesting to learn where the Early Show's Palin third Party concept originated from. The secondary theme of the Tea Party supporters, and thus Palin by inference as purported leader, as racists is not only despicable but also doomed to failure. Palin, by her marriage is bullet-proof to charges of racism and her visible warmth to the black schoolchildren on her new Real American Stories show was apparent to all.
Update: Former VP Dan Quayle gives due credit to Palin for her outstanding role in recognising the potential of the Tea Party activists and for her reaching out to them.He too argues against the Tea Party as a third party force-being acutely aware of what the Perot third party run cost the G.O.P. in 1992 which result he doesn't want to see repeated in 2012.
On Deep Reflection-The Core Reasons This Ex-Liberal Supports Palin
1.PALIN IS A WOMAN
I hold with Paglia (Sex And Violence, Or Nature And Art) that the sublimation of the male Dionysian to enable society to function has led to specific aspects of male superiority and the rise of the Apollonian e.g. in the arts. However the Dionysian can’t be held in check “there is no female Hitler or Beethoven” and the negative aspects-war, date rape etc break through.
I believe society will only reach its true heights when the feminine principle is dominant in our political structures (with a majority of seats in Congress etc) and reflects the superior qualities of 51% of the population. I applaud the Scandinavian and Indian governments who have legislated a minimum number of parliamentary seats for women. I will never forgive the Democrats for what they did to Hillary, whom I voted for-it is America’s loss this astute woman is not President instead of the empty suit incompetent with his equally incompetent advisors. It would be silly to vote for any woman just because of her gender-obviously I believe Palin has the right gender and the right qualities, which include the following;
2.SHE HOLDS TO THE SANCTITY OF LIFE.
It speaks to her moral character that she has held to her beliefs, when others might falter, and carried her child to full term-nobody can take that away from her. I don’t agree fully with her stance on abortion but lean to preserving life if possible. In this age of duplicity I respect her values and her living them. I respect that she believes in counselling and not legislating for further abortion controls. This allows for society to evolve to pro-life in a stable manner and accepts current realities.
3. SHE HAS A PERSONAL MORAL COMPASS
She doesn’t have affairs, she tries to be a good mother.
She is upbeat and uplifting, she has character and a love of ordinary folks. She has more qualifications than Truman but is cut from the same cloth.
4.THE ESTABLISHMENT DISLIKES HER
The beltway east/west coast elites hate her. The ivy leaguers (including G.W. Bush) who got America into Vietnam/Iraq who love the great unwashed in the abstract but look down their noses at them as individuals are no more guarantors of economic or any other sort of stability than a common sense person (who has proven achievements) and who is connected to the people.
Shock Horror-N.Y. Times/L.A. Times/WashPo Critics Pan Palin's New Show
Who would have believed it ??
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Further Poll Analysis Shows Palin Potentially Way Out In Front For G.O.P. Nomination
In the previous analysis of the most recent PPP polling looking at the Republican frontrunners nationwide, which had Romney at 28% Huckabee at 24% and Palin at 23% , I made the point that the reality is that Palin is far out in front. Given that Huckabee is unlikely to run (the Intrade betting mark of his getting the nomination is 6.3-Palin is at 24 and Romney 23.1 ) and if you add the bulk of his supporters to Palin's result ( especially given there is little love lost between Romney and Huckabee) and the undecideds split fairly evenly, Palin would be around the 50% mark.
At the "Republican Rankings" blog they have done an analysis of the PPP polling by state with the following caveat
"The news isn't all bad for Palin, though. A February Magellan Strategies survey had her winning Kentucky. " They forgot to add that the poll they published for Arizona showed, in that substantially Mormon state, Palin led Romney by 28% to 27% with Huckabee at 13%-following the same principle of Huckabee's supporters supporting Palin she would have a substantial lead.
If we extend this principle to the PPP state polling, my computations are the P+H (Palin + Huckabee) percentages on the right, the true strength of Palin's support is apparent . Of course 100% of Huckabee's support won't transfer but enough will to give her a winner take all plurality where applicable.
Colorado and (surprisingly) Florida are a problem for Palin, Ohio is a pleasant surprise as is Wisconsin. There are no percentage figures for Georgia but there is little to suspect it would not be much different for Palin than Alabama. Another challenge for Palin is California where the Magellan poll had Romney,not surprisngly, at 31% to Palin's 18 % and Huckabee's 13%. However this vital state is viable if we allow for the bulk of Huckabee's support to go to Palin and the majority of the 8% Ron Paul polled. The decider at this point would be the 12% that Gingrich polled, presuming that he too is not a candidate.
The state-by-state polling PPP has done, thus far.
Alabama: Huck 41%, Palin 27%, Romney 20% ( P+H 68%)
Colorado: Romney 44%, Palin 25%, Huck 17% ( P+H 42%)
Florida: Romney 52% Huck 21% Palin 18% ( P+H 39%)
Georgia: 1) Huck 2) Romney 3) Palin ( P+H 3+1 Positioning)
Missouri: Huck 32% Palin 28% Romney 22% ( P+H 60%)
New Mexico: Romney 33% Palin 32% Huck 18% ( P+H 50%)
North Carolina: Huck 30% Palin 27% Romney 25% ( P+H 57%)
Ohio: Romney 32% Huck 28% Palin 26% ( P+H 54%)
Texas: Romney 32% Huck 29% Palin 23% ( P+H 52%)
Wisconsin: Romney 32% Palin 27% Huck 23% ( P+H 50%)
At the "Republican Rankings" blog they have done an analysis of the PPP polling by state with the following caveat
"The news isn't all bad for Palin, though. A February Magellan Strategies survey had her winning Kentucky. " They forgot to add that the poll they published for Arizona showed, in that substantially Mormon state, Palin led Romney by 28% to 27% with Huckabee at 13%-following the same principle of Huckabee's supporters supporting Palin she would have a substantial lead.
If we extend this principle to the PPP state polling, my computations are the P+H (Palin + Huckabee) percentages on the right, the true strength of Palin's support is apparent . Of course 100% of Huckabee's support won't transfer but enough will to give her a winner take all plurality where applicable.
Colorado and (surprisingly) Florida are a problem for Palin, Ohio is a pleasant surprise as is Wisconsin. There are no percentage figures for Georgia but there is little to suspect it would not be much different for Palin than Alabama. Another challenge for Palin is California where the Magellan poll had Romney,not surprisngly, at 31% to Palin's 18 % and Huckabee's 13%. However this vital state is viable if we allow for the bulk of Huckabee's support to go to Palin and the majority of the 8% Ron Paul polled. The decider at this point would be the 12% that Gingrich polled, presuming that he too is not a candidate.
The state-by-state polling PPP has done, thus far.
Alabama: Huck 41%, Palin 27%, Romney 20% ( P+H 68%)
Colorado: Romney 44%, Palin 25%, Huck 17% ( P+H 42%)
Florida: Romney 52% Huck 21% Palin 18% ( P+H 39%)
Georgia: 1) Huck 2) Romney 3) Palin ( P+H 3+1 Positioning)
Missouri: Huck 32% Palin 28% Romney 22% ( P+H 60%)
New Mexico: Romney 33% Palin 32% Huck 18% ( P+H 50%)
North Carolina: Huck 30% Palin 27% Romney 25% ( P+H 57%)
Ohio: Romney 32% Huck 28% Palin 26% ( P+H 54%)
Texas: Romney 32% Huck 29% Palin 23% ( P+H 52%)
Wisconsin: Romney 32% Palin 27% Huck 23% ( P+H 50%)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)